Climate Exodus: Seeking refuge beyond the borders

“We are likely to become the victims of a phenomenon to which we have contributed very little and which we can do very little to halt”

This quote by Amb. Robert Aisi created the discourse on the impact of climate on refugees at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) open debate on energy, security and climate in 2007. Since then, 5 such open debates have taken place on the topic of Climate and Security but do we see any change? Do multiple conventions solve or at least attempt to answer the question of the growing trouble of climate crisis and the emergence of Climate Refugees.

A historical series of Unacknowledgments 
Climate refugees lack a formal definition when it comes to international law, without any official categorization of any individual as a ‘Climate Refugee”.  This lack of a uniform legal definition is critical to understanding the historical context and contemporary situation of individuals displaced by climate change in international relations. But a common discourse used widely, would define them as individuals who are displaced as a result of climate change (extreme weather events, environmental disasters and degradation).

Historically, among the realm of international law and global affairs, recognition towards climate refugees in 1951 Refugee Convention was negligible. The following years sought some solace with increasing dialogues for global warming. In 1970, Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute used the term “environment refugees” to elaborate on large scale climate related migration patterns. In 1985, the UN Environment Programme sought to provide the earliest formal definition elaborating on environmental disruption affecting lives. 2018 Global Impact could be marked as a landmark in history with finally acknowledging climate change also a factor affecting migration. With the onset of the new century, the academic attention to climate displacement saw a new breakthrough. COP24 implemented pledges from the Paris Agreement and offered the first set of international actions to combat climate displacement.

Global Divide among North and South
Even with the much-anticipated negotiations and discussions about climate change and their refugees – where are we in the recent time? An estimated 216 million people could become climate migrants by 2050, forced to leave their homes due to rising seas, desertification, and extreme weather events. Yet, despite decades of climate negotiations and high-level summits, where do we really stand today on the issue of climate-induced displacement?

Marx emphasised on class disparities differentiating between the rich and poor- a clear example of which can be seen in real life scenarios. Climate mobility offered to the wealthy of the global north in comparison to the vulnerable threatened people among the Oceania states and the global south shows hypocrisy with the rich ‘buying their way out of the climate crisis’. Australia and New Zealand offer to buy citizenship through an elaborate investment program (AUD 1.25+ million ; NZD 5+ million respectively) gaining 5 year visas and then permanent residency. Being ultrawealthy, for them this is just another investment in their “well-being”, easily gaining access to golden visas or investor pathways. Now through monetary investment comes legal recognition paired with fast bureaucratic processes. Obviously, for the host nation this means a hefty amount of economic investment.

Let’s consider the flip side. The nations of the Global South, Oceania States like Tuvalu, Nepal who initially struggled for their freedom, then development, and now their well-being without any fault of their own. They face limited or no legal migration despite extreme existential climate threats living under $2 a day making it impossible for them to afford any legal avenues to safer countries. Under international refugee law excluding environmental displacement makes them legally and institutionally vulnerable. Not only is the process slow and complex for them but quota- limited migration offers no guarantee of safety or rather a permanent solution. Global North governments often overlook perceiving climate migration from vulnerable states as a humanitarian burden, as evidenced by unmet climate financing commitments and a lack of legally enforceable frameworks. Vulnerable governments have minimal negotiating strength; they rely on goodwill, restricted bilateral accords, or humanitarian grounds.

The ongoing climate crisis is not limited to just environmental phenomena but sinks deep into political and social ones, shaped through historical power dynamics and unequal distribution of responsibility. Migration is about more than simply location- it is about privilege. Affluent individuals and the Global North primarily control paths of mobility, holding the front row seat to who goes where and determining the circumstances. Control modifies migration into an unachievable idea of thought rather than a universal human right.

A Call to Action
Now, imagine standing on a white beach with crystal water beneath a limitless beautiful sky. Tuvalu is a postcard coming to life, with coral reefs cradling teeming marine life and Polynesian culture flowing through every wind. But beauty has its limits: rising tides gradually wiping houses, its culture and heritage threaten the country's fundamental existence. Tuvalu is losing not just land, but also its future—one wave at a time. Such is the state of  Tuvalu, Kiribati, Vanuatu, and other Pacific Island states facing the brunt of climate change . Scientists warned that a large part of the nation might be submerged underwater by 2050, coercing mass displacement.

Its plight first captured global attention when its Foreign Minister, Simon Kofe, delivered his address at the 2021 UN Climate Conference (COP26) standing knee deep in seawater in a suit to emphasize the urgency and horrific reality of the country’s situation. This imagery became the symbol of fight and hope – for survival, identity and sovereignty for small island states.

Conclusion
A climate-security pact shaping the Pacific’s future could create a dawn of hope for people in Tuvalu. The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty signed on November 9 2023, even though first of its kind, grants the right to live, work and study in Australia with an annual quota of 280 visas providing mobility with dignity. Comprehensive rights like social services, healthcare are also included in explicitly recognising climate change as a driver of displacement, acknowledging this nexus. Not only are the citizens of Tuvalu given agency and choice, allowing them human rights and cultural preservation along with community ties to be maintained.

This bilateral agreement proves to be a model for how other countries should also take responsibility for climate -induced displacement when there is absence of a global framework.  This unconventional pact should serve as a blueprint for global action—pushing nations to develop deeper cooperation, crafting legal frameworks that safeguard communities living on the very edge of climate catastrophe.