The rise of climate migrants: challenges in international law

In today’s world, climate change is becoming a central topic in politics, economics, and public debate. As a result, the term “climate refugee” is being used more and more often. It usually refers to people who are forced to leave their homes because of the impacts of climate change.

Recent data show how serious the problem has become. According to the International Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), by the end of 2024 there were more than 83 million internally displaced people worldwide – the highest number ever recorded. A large share of these displacements is linked to natural disasters and climate-related factors. In 2024 alone, around 10 million people were forced to leave their homes because of floods, storms, cyclones, and droughts. Long-term forecasts are also worrying. Many research centers estimate that by 2050, hundreds of millions of people could be displaced for environmental reasons, especially in coastal areas, dry regions of Africa and South Asia, and small island states.

Against this background, the global community is increasingly asking who “climate refugees” actually are, what rights they have, and what kind of protection can be offered to them.

In classical international migration law, the concept of a refugeeis defined in the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. It applies to people who flee persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs. Climate-related events such as floods, droughts, or rising sea levels are not included in this definition. In other words, international law does not currently recognize people fleeing climate disasters as refugees who are automatically entitled to international protection.

Because there is no official legal term “climate refugee”, organizations such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugeesand the International Organization for Migration usually refer to these people as “disaster-displaced persons” or “climate migrants”. This wording reflects the fact that they do not have formal refugee status.

Why is this a problem? Because the lack of legal status creates a protection gap. A person who crosses a border because their island is being flooded or their land has turned into desert does not enjoy the same guarantees as someone fleeing war or political repression. The 1951 Convention does not apply to them. As a result, the host country can legally refuse asylum and send them back. This leaves millions of people vulnerable and at risk of being returned to places where their lives are threatened by climate impacts.

At the same time, the international community does recognize the link between climate change and migration. The 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration clearly states that natural disasters, climate change, and environmental degradation are drivers of migration. However, this document is not legally binding and does not create new legal categories or obligations.

Still, the absence of a special status does not mean the absence of rights. Basic human rights apply to all people who are forced to leave their homes, regardless of the reasons. The climate crisis directly affects fundamental rights such as the right to life, food, water, housing, and health.

One key principle of international law that matters here is the principle of non-refoulement. It means that no one should be sent back to a place where they face serious danger.

In 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee issued an important decision stating that returning a person to conditions where climate change poses a real threat to their life could violate the right to life. This view was expressed in the case of Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati who sought asylum in New Zealand because of the risk of flooding in his home country. Although the Committee did not find a violation in that specific case, it made clear that once climate risks reach a critical level, deportation would no longer be acceptable.

In 2025, this approach was further developed at the level of the International Court of Justice. In its advisory opinion on states’ obligations related to climate change, the Court confirmed that the effects of climate change can affect fundamental human rights, especially the right to life. It stated that if returning a person to their country of origin creates a real risk of serious and irreversible harm to their right to life due to climate factors, states must take this risk into account when making deportation decisions. In this way, the Court strengthened the legal basis for applying the principle of non-refoulement in a climate context, even though it did not establish a formal status of “climate refugee”.

As climate-related displacement continues to grow, different solutions to this legal gap are being discussed. These range from expanding the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Convention to include people displaced by climate change, to creating a separate international mechanism or a new treaty designed specifically to protect them.

However, in some cases the very concept of a refugee may not fully capture the nature of climate displacement. Unlike classic cases of persecution, climate disasters often lead not to temporary insecurity but to the permanent loss or uninhabitability of entire territories. In such situations, the idea of “return” loses its meaning, because the place people came from may no longer exist. This suggests that the global community may need to rethink its terminology and develop new legal categories to describe these forms of movement.

This raises an important question about how the Republic of Kazakhstan should respond to this emerging reality. On the one hand, Kazakhstan is not traditionally a major destination for large refugee flows. On the other hand, climate change is already affecting the country through rising drought, land degradation, and growing water shortages. These trends create conditions for internal displacement and also for possible inflows of people from neighboring Central Asian countries. In the future, such inflows could be seen both as an economic resource – helping to support labor markets and demographics – and as a source of additional pressure on infrastructure, water supply systems, food security, and social services. In the absence of an internationally recognized status for “climate refugees”, Kazakhstan, like other countries in the region, may need to develop its own approaches to integrating climate factors into migration and socio-economic policy.

In short, climate-driven migration increasingly challenges traditional categories of international migration law. It calls for rethinking these concepts not only at the global level, but also within national policy frameworks.