You are looking at 1 - 10 of 12 items

  • Author or Editor: Benoît Mayer x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Benoît Mayer

Under the international law of State responsibility, a State must pay reparation for the injury caused to other States by its internationally wrongful acts. This chapter questions whether this rule could provide grounds for normative arguments relating to the treatment of migrants in the context of climate change. It argues that it could not. Certainly, States bear some responsibilities, not just when and inasmuch as they fail to comply with their obligations under specific treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, but also when they infringe norms of general international law such as the no-harm principle. States responsible for a breach of a primary international obligation bear a secondary obligation to make reparation, in particular by compensating the injured State(s). This, however, does not justify the imposition of specific obligations on the developing States affected by climate change to adopt particular policies on ‘climate migration’ beyond international human rights law. Measures allowing for the resettlement of foreign citizens as a form of reparation, on the other hand, appear unlikely to provide an effective protection to the human rights of the individuals concerned.

This content is available to you

Benoît Mayer

No simple adjustment in international law can provide an adequate response to the issues raised by the current debates on “climate migration.” Yet, these discussions could stress the need for structural reforms in global governance in a growingly interdependent world. This introduction presents an overview of the central themes of this book. It introduces the main methodologies and theoretical frameworks that form the general background for the following analysis.
You do not have access to this content

Benoît Mayer

A humanitarian narrative construes climate migration as an issue of human suffering. It is largely accepted that each state must protect the human rights of individuals within its jurisdiction. However, certain circumstances such as a natural disaster, which are exacerbated by climate change, may result in a state being unable to effectively protect its population. Migration may result from inadequate protection in the place of origin, and it may also cause greater protection needs during displacement or at the place of destination. This chapter explores existing norms on human rights and humanitarian assistance, and it suggests some reflections on the prospects and dangers of a humanitarian argument in relation with climate migration.
You do not have access to this content

Benoît Mayer

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol established an international protection regime applicable to a narrowly defined category of individuals unable to return to their country of origin due to a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Most of the impact of climate change occurs outside this regime, and outside complementary regimes of protection, being generally confined within states and more often than not occurring in circumstances where migration appears as “voluntary” rather than “forced.” Beyond weak arguments by analogy for a protection of “climate refugees,” climate change sheds new light on the need for a protection of the rights of all migrants. In response to climate change, human mobility needs to be reconceived as a “normal” social phenomenon, and the specific vulnerability of migrants needs to be addressed systematically through adequate measures of protection.
You do not have access to this content

Benoît Mayer

Migration has recently entered the negotiations on climate change as either a form of adaptation or a category of loss and damage, but few concrete steps have yet been proposed. A normative argument based on the law of state responsibility or on a certain interpretation of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility calls for states emitting excessive quantities of greenhouse gas to mitigate climate change and to compensate the states most affected by its impacts. However, industrial states are likely to elude this argument, opting instead for a self-serving climate regime, in particular by pushing developing states to further contribute in the containment of international migration in the South.
You do not have access to this content

Benoît Mayer

Previous chapters have shown that the concept of climate migration reflects larger issues of international solidarity and responsibility. How could states be persuaded to reinforce the protection of the human rights of migrants or to relate more responsibly to the global atmospheric commons? By deconstructing prevailing conceptions of national economic interests and national security, this chapter submits that both human rights protection and climate change responsibility can be envisioned through an alternative construction of states’ interests in a complex and interdependent world.
You do not have access to this content

Benoît Mayer

You do not have access to this content

The Concept of Climate Migration

Advocacy and its Prospects

Benoît Mayer

This timely book offers a unique interdisciplinary inquiry into the prospects of different political narratives on climate migration. It identifies the essential angles on climate migration – the humanitarian narrative, the migration narrative and the climate change narrative – and assesses their prospects. The author contends that although such arguments will influence global governance, they will not necessarily achieve what advocates hope for. He discusses how the weaknesses of the concept of “climate migration” are likely to be utilized in favour of repressive policies against migration or for the defence of industrial nations against perceived threats from the Third World.
This content is available to you

Benoît Mayer

Although the no-harm principle has been identified as the cornerstone of international environmental law, it has not generally been recognized as a central feature of international climate change governance. Enduring disagreements as to the relevant normative principles to international cooperation have long plagued international climate change negotiations. This article highlights the general legal and political relevance of the no-harm principle in relation to climate change, including the responsibility of states for breaking this principle. It thus suggests that the climate regime should be framed as a regime recognizing obligations and responsibilities rather than a regime of voluntary participation and assistance. The article includes a detailed account of the reception of the no-harm principle in climate negotiations, a response to three likely objections to the relevance of the no-harm principle, and some reflections on a possible, realistic interpretation of the no-harm principle in relation to climate change.

You do not have access to this content

Frédéric Mégret and Benoît Mayer

In 2007, 2011 and 2015, the Council held special meetings to discuss ways of fighting the impact of climate change, including the possibility of deploying ‘green helmets’. There is a sense that the Council should have something to say on climate change, but the Council has struggled to define its role. The question of global migration flows has featured rather prominently in the Security Council’s meetings on global warming. Yet, these meetings have identified no evident concrete measures that the Security Council could realistically take to address either ‘climate migration’ as a whole, or even specific implications of climate change on human mobility. This chapter shows that the case for action of the Security Council in relation to climate migration is fraught with difficulties.