Managing Displacement in the Era of Climate Change

The relationship between climate change and human mobility is complex, and an appreciation of its complicated dynamics is an essential precursor to formulating good public policy. This article concludes that we need to devise laws and policies that assist and protect people, give them choices, and respect their dignity. These will determine whether, and for how long, people can remain in their homes, and whether doing so enables them to lead dignified lives or exposes them to risks and increased vulnerability

Las lecciones de anteriores reubicaciones y reasentamientos planificados

Si ponemos las actuales deliberaciones sobre la reubicación en un contexto histórico y un marco intelectual más amplios, hallaremos conexiones inesperadas y útiles lecciones

El concepto de migración a causa de las crisis

La migración a causa de las crisis debe ser entendida en términos de “puntos de inflexión” que se desencadenan no sólo por eventos sino también por procesos estructurales subyacentes. Es importante que quienes elaboran las políticas en este campo tengan una adecuada teoría sobre el concepto de “migración a causa de las crisis” para que las respuestas sean apropiadas, oportunas y razonadas

Exploring the Legal Basis in Australia for Evacuations from Disasters: Avoiding Arbitrary Displacement

The summer of 2019–20 saw Australia’s largest ever peacetime evacuation, as bushfires threatened homes, communities and lives. In 2022, thousands of people were evacuated from catastrophic floods in northern New South Wales and Queensland. As climate change amplifies the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, evacuations are likely to become increasingly common. Yet, while evacuations can protect people from imminent danger, they can also displace people from their homes and place human rights at risk. This article provides a detailed analysis of state and federal evacuation powers in Australia, in light of international law and policy standards, and highlights where protection gaps exist. It argues that such gaps arise, in part, because evacuations are not ‘seen’ as a form of displacement in Australia, thereby rendering people’s needs – and rights – invisible. The challenges identified here are not only pertinent to law and policy reform in Australia, but also in other countries

Creating New Norms on Climate Change, Natural Disasters and Displacement: International Developments 2010–2013

This article provides an account of attempts at the international level to develop a normative framework relating to climate change and migration from late 2010 to mid- 2013. It traces the “catalytic effect” of paragraph 14(f) of the Cancún Adaptation Framework (adopted in December 2010), through to the concerted, but ultimately unsuccessful effort of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2011 to get states to agree to the formulation of a “global guiding framework” on displacement relating to climate change and natural disasters. Finally, the article discusses the creation of the state-led Nansen Initiative in late 2012—a tentative “first step” towards international policy-making in this field—and the outcomes of its first sub-regional consultation in the Pacific in May 2013.Cet article rend compte des tentatives, au niveau interna- tional, de développer un cadre normatif dans le domaine des changements climatiques et de la migration, qui ont eu lieu entre la fin de 2010 et le milieu de 2013. Il retrace l’effet catalyseur du paragaphe 14(f) du Cancún Adaptation Framework (adopté en décembre 2010) par le biais des efforts concertés du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, mais qui n’on ultimement pas réussi à amener les états à s’entendre sur la formulation d’un cadre de travail global en matière de déplacements dus aux changements climatiques et aux désastres environnemen- taux. Cet article discute enfin de la création de l’Initiative Nansen vers la fin de 2012 – un essai de première étape vers l’établissement de politiques internationales dans le domaine – et des résultats de sa première consultation régionale dans le Pacifique en mai 2013

Regionalising International Refugee Law in the European Union: Democratic Revision or Revisionist Democracy?

This paper questions whether the process of harmonisation of the European Union’s asylum laws has strengthened the region’s commitment to international law and international standards, or has instead diluted them in order to accommodate regional (and domestic "democratic") concerns about forced migration. Harmonisation has taken place in a political environment that is suspicious of asylum seekers, that seeks restrictive entrance policies and that is wary of large numbers of refugees. This paper argues that such factors have heavily influenced the scope of the common asylum laws – who is eligible for protection – and the rights to which beneficiaries are entitled – what that protection actually is. It looks in particular at the confinement of protection to "third country nationals", a restriction which contravenes the 1951 Refugee Convention and denies international protection to groups within the EU such as the Roma, whose discrimination is welldocumented and has historically led to many being recognised as refugees. Furthermore, the paper considers that the EU citizen’s right to free movement is not synonymous with a right to residence, and is especially complicated for nationals of the 12 new accession States. It argues that harmonisation has occurred at the expense of a comprehensive and systematic analysis of international law, responding instead to "democratic" political compromise and pragmatism

Evacuations and Relocations after Disasters: Safeguarding Lives and Rights

Without significant global action on climate change, the disruption wrought by more frequent and intense disasters is set to continue. Governments must undertake a more holistic assessment of the hazards facing people living in disaster-prone areas, including whether current laws are adequate to protect people who are evacuated. Over the past decade, 80% of the world’s disaster displacement occurred in the Asia-Pacific region — much of it a result of government-led evacuations. In Australia, all jurisdictions authorize evacuations in emergencies to safeguard people’s lives, safety and health. However, while evacuations are intended as a life-saving emergency tool, they too often result in prolonged displacement and create other risks, including risks to life

Locked In: Australia’s COVID-19 Border Closures and the Right to Leave

In March 2020, Australia became one of a handful of democratic states worldwide to adopt a blanket prohibition on the right of citizens to leave its territory, whether temporarily or permanently, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Health Regulations, which bind all members of the World Health Organization ('WHO'), including Australia, provide an international legal framework to guide the public health response to the international spread of disease in a manner which respects human rights and fundamental freedoms. The right to freedom of movement in international human rights law is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR'), which Australia ratified in 1990. Although states can place restrictions on freedom of movement to protect public health, they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function, the least intrusive instrument which might achieve the desired result, and proportionate to the interest to be protected. This article argues that in adopting sweeping restrictions on outbound travel, Australia re-purposed aspects of its migration control regime - ordinarily employed to externalise its international border and prevent people from entering the country - in order to prevent Australian citizens and permanent residents from leaving Australia. The outbound travel restrictions further bypassed an analysis of the intrusiveness and proportionality of the measures themselves, and shifted the burden onto individuals to request an exemption where the regulation of exit proved overly intrusive or disproportionate in their particular circumstances. In examining parliamentary transcripts, press statements by government officials, and recently revealed data regarding outbound travel exemptions, this article raises serious questions regarding the legality of the restrictions over time and their implementation in light of international law