THE APPLICATION OF THE NON-REFOULEMENT PRINCIPLE TO CROSS-BORDER CLIMATE MIGRANTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Abstract

Abstract

Climate-related cross-border mobility raises legal questions concerning the protection of individuals who face serious environmental harm upon return but do not qualify as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention. This study examines the conditions under which non-refoulement applies to cross-border climate migrants and develops a framework for assessing climate-related return risks. It employs normative legal research combining treaty-based, conceptual, and case-based approaches. The analysis examines the Refugee Convention, its 1967 Protocol, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, relevant interpretive materials, Teitiota v. New Zealand, and the International Court of Justice’s 2025 climate advisory opinion. The findings identify two distinct protection routes: refugee protection where climate-related circumstances intersect with persecution on a Convention ground, and human rights protection where return would create a real risk of prohibited harm, particularly irreparable harm to the right to life. Neither environmental exposure nor rejection of refugee status independently determines the legality of return. The study proposes three connected assessment dimensions: the severity and foreseeability of harm, individual exposure and vulnerability, and the availability of effective protection in the country of origin. These dimensions organize legal reasoning without replacing existing protection thresholds or creating a separate immigration status. The study concludes that climate-related non-refoulement requires individualized, evidence-based assessments and procedures capable of considering changing environmental conditions. Its doctrinal scope limits conclusions concerning national implementation and individual eligibility.