In the first ‘climate refugee’ case decided by the Human Rights Committee, the impacts of climate change in Kiribati were found not to pose a sufficiently serious threat to the right to life of a Kiribati man deported from NZ, to amount to a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The man had claimed asylum in NZ on the basis that the effects of climate change would threaten his right to life. He pointed to rising sea levels, serious flooding, scarcity of land and associated land disputes, salination of drinking water sources and destruction of crops thereby depriving him of a means of subsistence. The NZ Courts rejected his claim and he petitioned the Human Rights Committee.  See our case summary HERE.

Whilst accepting the author’s claim that Kiribati would be uninhabitable within 10-15 years, the Committee found that Kiribati was taking adaptive measures to address the impacts of climate change and there was sufficient time for it to do more to protect the author’s right to life.  It ultimately rejected the author’s petition but stated that the effects of climate change could violate the right to life and trigger non-refoulement obligations on deporting states and such states should continue to assess the data regarding the impacts of climate change and rising sea levels: ‘given that the risk of an entire country becoming submerged under water is such an extreme risk, the conditions of life in such a country may become incompatible with the right to life with dignity before the risk is realized.’

This is a landmark decision in the growing national and international jurisprudence on environmental and climate impacts on the right to life. While finding no violation of the right to life in this case, the decision clearly opens the door for further claims regarding the impacts of climate change and the right to life. Further, whilst the case was specific to the deportation context, it suggests there is acceptance by Committee members that the impacts of climate change could violate the right to life and engage State obligations to protect the right to life of individuals within its territory.  A summary of the case can be found HERE.