Abstract
The notion of “climate refugee” is not consecrated legally: as no future convention on the matter is emerging while climate change is advancing, it is the role of the jurisprudence to create pathways to deal with it, as many people are and will have to migrate because of the phenomenon. The recent case Daniel Billy v. Australia from the Human Rights Committee (HRC) of the United Nations (UN) could help elaborate on an understanding of forced migration caused by climate change: some indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Islands near Australia complained about the adverse effects of it on their lives, they formulated grievances against the Australian government which – in their opinion – was responsible for their predicament. The proceedings questioned multiple aspects of climate change: its effects on a population but also broader legal consequences when it comes to states’ inaction. The Committee found that Australia was violating Article 17 of the ICCPR regarding the right to family life and Article 27 regarding the cultural rights of these islanders. This outcome could help define the consequences of climate change in terms of forced migration. The resulting threat to life could be analysed in two ways: narrowly, it could refer to the “persecution” entrenched in Article 1(A)2 of the Refugee Convention (understood as the result of two elements which are a failure of state protection and a harm suffered by the potential refugee. Broadly, it could be in line with the threat evoked in Article 33(1) about the non-refoulement obligation: the decision could shape an opportunity towards the activation of it, although no violation of the right to life has been found. Factors to determine a climate refugee status, the responsibilities of States towards them, and the threat of climate change to human life are also considered in this article.