Among the issues that the climate crisis has caused over the last few decades is one that has had multiple effects from a legal perspective, an individual point of view, and in international relations. Climate change has triggered a wave of displaced populations who consist of people forced to flee their homes due to climate-related disasters such as rising sea levels, severe droughts, and intensified storms. Not only do climate refugees bear the burden of a crisis not of their making, but they also lack protection as no international legal framework recognises their status, leaving them without the security provided to refugees fleeing conflicts or persecution.

Though the international community initially saw the climate refugee crisis as country-specific issue, recent events have demonstrated that it has become a global problem. On the one hand, countries like Bangladesh, the Maldives, and several Pacific island nations are among the worst affected by rising sea levels,  and on the other regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Central America are plagued by desertification, drought, and extreme weather. International responses to the climate refugee crisis have focused on short-term solutions, which have proven ineffective in addressing this issue. Solutions were limited to humanitarian aid, temporary relocation programs, and vague promises in international climate agreements, such as the Paris Accord.

In particular, it is incumbent upon nations like the United States, China, and members of the European Union to shape international responses to this crisis, given that they contribute the most to climate change. However, these nations mainly focus on limiting carbon emissions domestically, rather than addressing the plight of people displaced by global warming. Consequently, not only have the most vulnerable populations been exploited for centuries by richer nations for their resources and labor, but they are now forced to leave their homelands in precarious conditions, since international refugee conventions address the needs of people displaced by war, persecution, or political unrest. Climate refugees are trapped in a legal grey zone as a result.

Despite the growing number of people displaced by environmental disasters (approximately 376 million since 2008, according to Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre), the response to the climate refugee crisis has been inadequate. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which are the main treaties that established  international refugee law, define a refugee as “a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail him or herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution”.

This definition doesn’t include persons displaced by climate change, except for people fleeing areas where climate change caused political destabilisation and regional conflict. As a result, many climate-displaced people are left without legal protections, access to asylum, or the ability to seek safe relocation. They often have no choice but to remain in their own countries, often in dangerous or unsustainable conditions.

Bangladesh’s coastal areas, for example, are some one of the most vulnerable regions in the world due to rising sea levels. Millions have been forced to flee due to flooding and erosion. Climate refugees moved to overcrowded cities like Dhaka, where they live in informal settlements with limited access to clean water, healthcare, or employment opportunities. Moreover, although international aid was sporadically distributed, planning for long-term resettlement programs or infrastructural improvements has been absent, leaving these populations trapped in cycles of poverty and displacement.

Moving on to the Pacific, small island nations like Kiribati and Tuvalu face an existential crisis as rising sea levels threaten to submerge entire countries. Despite worldwide acknowledgment of their predicament, the international community has failed to provide meaningful solutions. Kiribati, for example, bought land in Fiji that could be used as a resettlement site for its population, but this “migration with dignity” strategy has received little support from wealthier nations. High carbon emitters are especially hesitant to accept climate refugees, which further isolates these island states.  New Zealand only grants visas to 75 people from Kiribati and Tuvalu each year.

The international community has mostly focused on mitigating climate change through domestic emission reductions, which often overshadows the pressing need to address the severe toll of global warming on people on the ground. The Paris Agreement, while important, lacks specific provisions for displaced populations. It focuses on preventative measures instead, like adaptation funding for at-risk regions, which have proven ineffective in the face of rapid environmental changes.

Moreover, from a legal standpoint, there have been attempts to broaden the 1951 UN Convention’s definition of “refugee” in order to include climate displaced persons, like the 1969 Organisation of African Unity’s (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, or the 1984 Cartagena Declaration. However, the former is a regional agreement and the latter is not legally binding. Many people are still left outside of this legal framework.

The lack of a global framework has created a patchwork of responses, often dependent on the goodwill of individual countries or regional organisations. Wealthier nations, and high carbon emitters in particular, are reluctant to accept climate refugees or provide substantial financial aid for resettlement programs. This has led to severe geopolitical tensions. On the one hand, wealthier nations hesitate to accept responsibility for climate displacement and fear the economic burden of an influx of migrants.  On the other, developing countries often lack the resources to accommodate internally displaced populations. These tensions have led to a stalemate, where action is either delayed or avoided, leaving vulnerable populations in a permanent state of uncertainty. Too many governments fail to address the root causes of displacement, such as poverty, a lack of infrastructure, or poor governance.

To tackle the climate refugee crisis, a shift from reactive to proactive approaches is necessary. Politicians and activists must promote global strategies that not only address the long-term challenge of climate change, but that also provide immediate protection to those already displaced by environmental collapse. Therefore, it is necessary to recognise climate refugees as a distinct category under international law, either by expanding the 1951 Refugee Convention or by creating a new international treaty that would provide legal protections, including the right to asylum, safe relocation, and international aid.

Moreover, wealthier nations, especially those responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, should lead by example and create an international fund specifically for climate-displaced populations,  This fund could be used to provide both short-term disaster relief and long-term resettlement programs, allowing displaced populations to move to safer areas with dignity.

These resettlement efforts should prioritise community-based solutions, in order to create climate-resilient communities. This could be achieved, for example, through investments in sustainable infrastructure, improvements in agricultural practices that can withstand extreme weather, and in the construction of climate-adaptive housing. This fund should not be viewed as charity but as climate reparations—compensation to populations that suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change. And when relocation is unavoidable, multilateral agreements must ensure that nations share the burden of accommodating climate refugees, with clear frameworks for integration and support in host countries.

Additionally, addressing the climate refugee crisis also requires a change in narrative. While current discussions around migration often focus on fear and security, particularly in wealthier nations where  refugees are seen as a threat, their approach should shift towards one of solidarity and shared responsibility. Public campaigns should highlight the fact that climate displacement is not the fault of refugee populations, but the result of historical and ongoing environmental degradation by industrialised nations. This could foster greater empathy among host nations and make people more  receptive to opening borders and support international resettlement efforts.

Finally, there is a need for a more coordinated international response. Currently, efforts to address climate displacement are scattered across various international organisations, treaties, NGOs, and other policies. A new global framework, perhaps led by a UN body that could merge expertise in disaster management, migration, and sustainable development, could ensure that climate refugees are given the necessary protection and support, while also creating mechanisms for conflict resolution and peace-building in regions destabilised by environmental factors.

The climate refugee crisis is one of the most pressing humanitarian challenges of our time, yet international responses remain woefully inadequate. The Institute for Economics and Peace has estimated that without immediate action, up to 1.2 billion people could be displaced due to natural disasters or other ecological threats by 2050. Recognising climate refugees under international law, establishing a global resettlement fund, and investing in climate adaptation are key to addressing this issue. By shifting from a reactive to a proactive approach, the global community can ensure that people displaced by climate change are protected and given the opportunity to rebuild their lives. These measures could help bring about a fairer and more sustainable world, where the rights of all people, regardless of their circumstances, are respected.