The following article is part of a series of reflections on the 2025 New Directions in Environmental Law Conference, also known as NDEL. On February 15, 2025, scholars, practitioners, students, and policymakers convened at Yale Law School to analyze changes and emerging issues in environmental law. The series covers the keynote speaker and each panel from NDEL, and is written by Student Reporter attendees. Student Reporters were guided by Alysia LeComte and Julianne Frey, NDEL Committee Members and 2L students at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.
Student reporters Maria Clara da Silva Fernandes and Shane Ardinger prepared this edited summary of the panel entitled ‘New Directions in the Law and Policy of Climate Migration’, featuring panelists Randall S. Abate, Assistant Dean for Environmental Law Studies & Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University Law School; Monica Iyer, Assistant Professor of Law at Georgia State University School of Law; José G. Miranda, Supervising Attorney in the Climate Department at the International Refugee Assistance Project; and moderated by Camila Bustos, Assistant Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.
Understanding Climate Migration
Climate change and migration are complex and interconnected topics, each presenting unique challenges. Understanding this intersection is crucial for identifying how displacement occurs and for monitoring its consequences, both in social impact and in policymaking.
“Climate migration” refers to the displacement of people caused, at least in part, by environmental changes resulting from climate change. This includes extreme weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, and floods that destroy housing and infrastructure; sea level rise that threatens coastal communities and low-lying islands); and environmental degradation that leads to desertification and biodiversity loss that compromises agricultural livelihoods.
While climate migration is a global issue, it manifests on a domestic level in every country. Communities are forced to leave their homes in search of safe and stable conditions. Panelists, such as Kira Vinke and Stephen Chu, during the Climate Change and Migration panel at the 2023 Nobel Week Dialogue, identified this phenomenon as one of the most urgent and pressing challenges facing humanity, highlighting its implications for governance, human rights, and sustainable development.
An important topic raised during the NDEL panel was the debate around terminology. The term “climate refugee” is commonly used in public discourse but is not recognized under international law. “Climate migrant” is the currently widely accepted classification, but it still presents problems, as the word “migrant” suggests voluntary movement — a category that doesn’t always capture the reality of climate-displaced individuals.
The lack of a uniform legal definition for climate migrants complicates the development of effective policies and legal protection for these populations. The challenge, therefore, is to reach a consensus on terminology and create legal and policy responses that acknowledge the intersection among climate change, social vulnerability, and human rights to ensure greater protection for those affected.
Legal Gaps in Domestic Protection and the Need for International Collaboration
There are significant gaps at both domestic and international levels of legal protection for climate migrants.
Under international law, there is no specific legal framework for migration, including climate migration. The 1951 Refugee Convention established protections for individuals persecuted due to race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion but did not encompass those fleeing environmental disasters. This Convention has left many displaced individuals without adequate legal protection.
Although international human rights treaties apply to all individuals regardless of immigration status, states frequently fail to uphold their commitments, leaving these populations vulnerable and without concrete guarantees. In this context, the widely accepted international law principle of non-refoulement prohibits states from returning individuals to countries where their life or bodily autonomy is at risk. However, there is a growing debate among academics and advocates questioning whether this principle should be extended to include climate migrants facing unsustainable conditions in their countries of origin.
One perspective raised by Professor Monica Iyer suggested that non-refoulement, as is understood in international human rights law, could be a legal pathway to ensure protection for these populations without requiring modifications to the 1951 Convention. However, some governments have resisted this approach, fearing expansion of their humanitarian obligations in a global landscape already marked by intense migration pressures.
In the absence of a specific legal framework, some alternative solutions have been proposed. One example in practice is the Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which allows people affected by climate disasters to remain legally in United States with work authorization. Another possibility is to record the impacts of climate change for asylum evaluations by documenting the conditions applicants face with the goal of strengthening their cases. Currently, many migration pathways do not explicitly address climate change, but there is a growing effort among legal advocates to collect and present this information more intentionally.
Panelists emphasized that more intentional data collection could help build momentum for legislative change. One speaker noted that this is an opportunity to prioritize the issue and begin articulating it in legislation at all levels as a first step to advance a climate migration governance agenda.
Professor Randall Abate lead the panel into a discussion of comparative perspectives between the United States and India, two countries that have receive many migrants. In the United States, there was a history of attempts to integrate the climate crisis into legal debates, such as Juliana v. United States, where plaintiffs argued that government inaction on climate change is a violation of constitutional rights. Similarly, India’s Supreme Court recently issued a ruling recognizing climate migration within the framework of human rights protections, aligning with trends observed in international treaties. India was cited as a leader in using its legal system to recognize and address the human impacts of climate-induced migration, making it one of the most ambitious frameworks in this area.
Despite the lack of a clear legal structure for climate migration, the continuing increase of wildfires, floods, and environmental disasters has driven discussions on the need for broader policies. The panel emphasized that, beyond legal mechanisms, a dual approach is necessary, focusing on both adaptation and mitigation. While adaptation involves developing resilient infrastructure, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, and implementing early warning systems for natural disasters, mitigation focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through clean energy policies and environmental conservation.
Without a coordinated and collaborative international response, climate migration will continue to be framed as a national security or humanitarian crisis, rather than being recognized as a human rights challenge requiring structural and comprehensive solutions.
Climate Migration: A Human Rights Issue
A key perspective presented by Professor Randall Abate is that climate migration can be framed as both a human rights issue and a national security concern, depending on the adopted narrative. The national security narrative perceives climate migrants as a threat to resource distribution and the stability of host communities, whereas the human rights discourse highlights the need to humanize migrants and obligations on states to provide international and domestic protections.
The general impression of the panel was that tackling climate migration necessitates applying a human rights lens, as millions of people may potentially be forced to leave their homes due to environmental degradation, with no viable alternatives to remain in their territories. Although there were differences of opinion on how best to integrate this issue into international law, panelists emphasized the importance of the right to stay — a fundamental concept in this debate, based on Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — which recognizes the need to create opportunities that allow vulnerable populations to continue living in their homelands instead of being forcibly displaced. In other words, this right protects freedom of movement, including the right not to be forced to migrate.
Another consideration raised by a panelist addressed the humanitarian discourse on climate migration, which can sometimes be reduced to a narrative of charity, where vulnerable populations are seen as passive victims and wealthier nations as benevolent benefactors helping out of goodwill. Panelists highlighted that in contrast to this discourse, a human rights approach emphasizes dignity, agency, and responsibility. Rather than treating climate migration solely as a humanitarian issue, the panel underscored that those who have contributed the most to climate change have a moral and legal duty to address the impacts caused by their actions.
Judicial Precedents
Mr. José Miranda identified the case of Cruz Galicia v. Garland as the first case in the U.S. federal court system to consider the impact of climate change in an asylum decision. In this case, the court ruled that “climate refugees” did not constitute a particular social group for lack of social distinction. Social distinction is a necessary element in particular-social-group-based asylum claims, but the court explained that Mr. Cruz Galicia did not provide sufficient evidence that “climate refugees” were affected in such a way that Guatemalan society viewed them as a distinguishable group.
Mr. Miranda raised that while this ruling sets a negative precedent for climate migrants seeking asylum in the U.S., it should not discourage climate migration and displacement advocates. Panelists pointed out that while the decision reinforced the current limitations of asylum law, it also underscored the need to explore alternative legal pathways within the existing framework. Although there were differing views on whether climate change should be directly recognized as a criterion for asylum, the panelists agreed that climate impacts often intersected with or exacerbated other forms of persecution — such as conflicts over natural resources, historical discrimination, or government neglect.
Within the current legal context, the most effective strategy may be to demonstrate how climate change exacerbates existing forms of persecution under asylum law, rather than attempting to establish a new, separate basis for climate-displaced people. The discussion also addressed how internal climate migration (i.e., within a country) often receives less attention than cross-border migration, even though it is the reality for most climate-displaced individuals. The panel emphasized the need to expand the legal debate on climate displacement, considering both internal and cross-border migration and seeking new interpretations within international refugee law.
One perspective raised by Professor Camila Bustos was the significance of the recent international precedent set by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, which, for the first time, recognized internal displacement due to climate change as a legally relevant issue. The general impression of the panel was that such legal recognition could open pathways to strengthen climate migrants’ legal protections in other countries, encouraging lawyers and activists to push for more robust policies. While there were differing views on whether this understanding could be extended to international law, the Colombian decision was seen as a significant advancement.
The panel also mentioned cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), which will issue advisory opinions on states’ obligations regarding climate change in the near future. These opinions1 will not decide specific cases but will interpret international law and may influence future judicial rulings and public policies. The IACHR, which has historically protected migrant rights, was asked to analyze states’ obligations in the context of climate mobility, and there are expectations that it will reinforce the need for protection for climate-displaced people.
Panelists also touched on the growing debate over climate reparations. Many argue for the responsibility of Global North countries to compensate Global South countries and communities for the damage caused by climate change. The panel highlighted that these proposals have historical foundations and could be transformative, requiring a systemic shift in the global approach to climate and migration.
Additionally, panelists emphasized that lawyers and activists must work together to strengthen climate advocacy and the protection of climate-displaced migrants. The formation of coalitions with community-based organizations is essential to ensure that public policies reflect the real needs of affected populations.
Climate Justice and Gentrification
Climate migration also raises critical social justice issues. Vulnerable communities often suffer the most severe impacts of climate change despite contributing the least to the problem.
One of the side effects of climate migration highlighted by Professor Randall Abate in the panel was “climate gentrification”, a phenomenon in which areas less exposed to environmental disasters become targets of real estate speculation as wealthier populations, previously settled in coastal regions, relocate inland in search of greater stability. This movement creates secondary displacement, forcing long-time residents of these areas to leave their homes due to the rising cost of living driven by the influx of wealthier newcomers. This process has been observed in cities such as Little Haiti in Miami and Asbury Park in New Jersey, where real estate appreciation pressures lower-income populations, making housing unaffordable for longtime residents.2
Given this scenario, a panelist pointed to the need for affordable housing policies and land protection measures to prevent vulnerable populations from being doubly marginalized. Professor Randall Abate also highlighted solutions such as Community Land Trusts (CLTs), which ensured collective land ownership to prevent speculation, and planned resettlement programs, that could have mitigated the impacts of climate gentrification by securing housing rights for affected populations.
Another key issue discussed was the concept of “receiving communities”, referring to cities that are proactively preparing to accommodate internal climate migrants. Some locations in the U.S. — Buffalo, NY, Duluth, MN, and Cincinnati, OH — are implementing planned relocation strategies and positioning themselves as structured destinations for displaced populations. This model seeks to balance the challenges of internal displacement with opportunities for local economic development, creating a scenario where both migrants and host communities can benefit.
Finally, the panel underscored the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration when addressing climate migration and emphasized that the issue cannot be treated solely through a legal lens. In addition to lawyers, the involvement of public policy experts, health professionals, social scientists, and urban planners is essential to ensure that responses are effective and comprehensive. Given the growing crisis of climate-induced displacement, innovative and coordinated solutions across different sectors are crucial to tackling the problem in a sustainable and equitable manner.
Perspectives for the Future
It is crucial to frame migration as a form of adaptation to climate change rather than solely as a crisis. Displaced communities are not passive victims; they are often actively adapting to a rapidly changing world. It is also essential to demonstrate the links between internal and cross-border displacement, showing how natural disasters and climate change shape both domestic and international migration patterns.
Although the law does not yet have adequate mechanisms to address cultural loss, lawyers can play a key role in documenting and preserving the history of affected communities. Cultural loss — such as the erosion of language, traditions, and ties to ancestral land — can have profound and lasting impacts. Acknowledging and addressing these dimensions is vital to ensuring that climate responses are truly inclusive and just.
As climate change intensifies, the need for concrete solutions becomes increasingly urgent. While the panel presented innovative proposals, there remains a significant gap between theory and practice. The primary challenge continues to be convincing states to act collectively and effectively.
- Additionally, the IACHR held public hearings on this matter in various locations, including Bridgetown, Barbados, and Brasília, Brazil, between April and May 2024. Further information about these hearings is available on the website of the Organization of American States: https://www.oas.org/fr/CIDH/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2024/125.asp.
- This reality is also discussed in the book The Great Displacement, by Jake Biddle, which examines case studies from various regions in the U.S., such as heat waves in Arizona, wildfires in California, sea level rise in Louisiana, and flooding in Texas. The book highlights how, despite clear evidence of climate impacts, affected populations do not receive the necessary support, leading to avoidable tragedies that could have been mitigated with effective public policies and adequate legal protections.