Photo Credit: Dina Haynes
As we have previously found, both Climate and Refugee legislation as it currently stands is inefficient to address the growing migration crisis.
Last year’s Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC (COP28) had similar findings, where a draft decision was published calling upon governments to hasten efforts to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal to reduce the rise of global surface temperatures to below 2°C above the pre-industrial average. The Conference additionally established a Loss and Damage Fund, aimed at providing financial assistance to countries most vulnerable to the harmful effects of Climate Change.
Since COP28, little productive change has been implemented by western states to properly alleviate concerns of growing climate migration. The U.S. and the EU have tightened their asylum laws, in the form of restricted asylum status allowances in the U.S. and stricter border procedures in the EU. The UK has also passed legislation to grant the government more power to detain and remove migrants who have entered the country illegally or by dangerous means such as boat crossings. With these states being common destination countries for migrants, implementation of reductive policies further complicates an already grueling process.
This is not to say all global changes in the last year have been negative, however multiple promises and goals have been set with progress yet to be seen. At last year’s COP28, the Democratic Republic of the Congo announced a partnership with international partners to pursue a “new climate economy”. This aims to increase investment in infrastructure, nature conservation efforts, and the “sustainable socioeconomic development” of local communities. Such goals are certainly welcome changes, considering how hard the DRC is affected by climate change (as we have previously made reference to).
Intergovernmental Organizations have also made statements with big implications on how governments should approach climate migration. The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea issued an advisory opinion earlier this year in response to a request made by a coalition of Small Island States (specifically COSIS). In the opinion, the ITLOS clarified that states who have accepted the parameters of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) also have an obligation to take “all necessary measures” to limit, prevent, and control greenhouse gas emissions due to their negative effect on marine environments. The International Court of Justice is expected to release an opinion on a similar matter as soon as the 15th of August this year. UNCLOS’s opinion and the pending ICJ opinion, while non-binding, are very significant, as this expands the number of organizations holding states accountable for their climate obligations beyond the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Such opinions can also be used as backing for future litigation.
COP29 is scheduled for November of this year, where participating states will hopefully assess their progress towards the Paris Agreement’s 2030 goals in the past year and make the appropriate changes to expedite reaching it. While UNCLOS’s decision and the DRC’s announcement have been steps in the right direction, all parties involved must step up efforts to properly assist those who are already facing the worst of climate change. With both the effects of climate change and the number of persons displaced as a result of them expected to increase exponentially in the coming years, States and Intergovernmental Organizations are already behind schedule and quickly running out of time to take action.
Kyle Lowe is a rising senior at the University of Chicago studying Human Rights and Visual Arts.
Comments