Climate Refugees and the Limits of Reparative Obligations to Offer Asylum

Law and Philosophy https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-024-09492-6 Ó The Author(s) 2024 ALI EMRE BENLI CLIMATE REFUGEES AND THE LIMITS OF REPARATIVE OBLIGATIONS TO OFFER ASYLUM (Accepted 19 January 2024) ABSTRACT. A growing number of authors argue that states which are responsible for global temperature rise owe reparative obligations to offer asylum to climate refugees because their decisions have led to the severe harms which climate refugees suffer. The validity and significance of reparative obligations as ideal moral requirements notwithstanding, this paper argues that, in practice, relying on causal responsibility to determine who is owed asylum is likely to produce morally objectionable outcomes. This problem results from a specific attribution problem, namely, the probabilistic reasoning and inherent uncertainties involved in establishing causal responsibility within the complex causal scenario of climate-related refugee movements. Because of this attribution problem, determining who is owed asylum is likely to be both under- and over-inclusive. Both under- and overinclusion lead to unjustified deprivations of basic rights for some climate refugees. I. INTRODUCTION Most states are failing in their promises to limit their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1 It is now highly likely that the Paris Agreement’s goal for limiting global temperature rise to below 2°C in comparison to preindustrial levels will not be achieved.2 As the planet warms, climate-related disruptive events, such as sea level rises, protracted droughts, and extensive wildfires are becoming more frequent. Each 1 For the current states of emission trends, see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘‘Summary for Policymakers’’ in H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022), pp. 3–33. 2 For the commitment of states, see United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), Adoption of the Paris Agreement (No. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev. 1). ALI EMRE BENLI year an ever-greater number of people migrate to avoid the effects of climate change.3 What is the normative relevance of the link between the failure of states to limit their GHG emissions and climate-related migration? A growing number of authors argue that states which are responsible for global temperature rise owe backward-looking reparative obligations to offer asylum to climate refugees because their decisions have led to the severe harms which climate refugees suffer.4 This is crucial for determining which states are required to offer asylum to climate refugees. Reparative obligations are considered to be more stringent than forward-looking humanitarian obligations that all states have towards all refugees. In turn, states that are responsible for global temperature rise, and thus under reparative obligations, are required to prioritize climate refugees’ claims to asylum over those of humanitarian refugees, provide durable solutions to the problems climate refugees are facing, and bear larger costs in remedying harms climate refugees suffer in comparison to other states. The role assigned to reparative obligations in determining responsibilities seems well placed when considering the empirical realities of climate-related refugee movements. Climate refugees predominantly flee underdeveloped states that have fewer capacities to adapt in response to disruptive climatic events. At the same time, underdeveloped states contribute, and have historically contributed, less to global temperature rise in comparison to developed states. Hence, reparative obligations are likely to fall on developed states that have greater capacities to offer asylum. Reparatory approaches 3 The exact numbers are disputed, but it is estimated that a range from tens to hundreds of millions will migrate in response to climate change related events in the coming decades. See Elizabeth Ferris, ‘Research on climate change and migration where are we and where are we going?’ Migration Studies, 8(4) (2020): pp. 612–625. 4 For arguments for reparation, see e.g., Rebecca Buxton, ‘‘Reparative Justice for Climate Refugees’’, Philosophy, 94(2)(2019): pp. 193–219, James Souter, ‘‘Asylum as Reparation: Refuge and Responsibility for the Harms of Displacement,’’ Journal of Refugee Studies, 35(3)(2022); for compensation, see e.g., Jamie Draper, ‘‘Responsibility and Climate-Induced Displacement,’’ Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric, 11(2)(2019): pp. 59–80 and ‘‘Climate Change and Displacement: Towards a Pluralist Approach’’ European Journal of Political Theory, 23(2) (2022), Clare Heyward and Jörgen Ödalen, ‘‘A Free Movement Passport for the Territorially Dispossed’’ in Clare Heyward and Dominic Roser eds., Climate Justice in a Non-Ideal World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), Robyn Eckersley ‘‘The common but differentiated responsibilities of states to assist and receive ‘climate refugees,’’’ European Journal of Political Theory 14(4)(2015): pp. 481–500, and for rectification, see e.g. Avner de Shalit, ‘‘Climate Change Refugees, Compensation and Rectification’’ The Monist 94(3)(2011), pp. 310–328. For the purposes of this paper, following Souter, ‘‘Asylum as Reparation,’’ I will use reparation as an umbrella term for compensation, reparation, and rectification. CLIMATE REFUGEES AND THE LIMITS OF REPARATIVE OBLIGATIONS may then provide adequate remedies for the harms climate refugees suffer. Nevertheless, this paper advances a cautionary note. The validity and significance of reparative obligations as ideal moral requirements notwithstanding, I emphasize that, in practice, relying on causal responsibility to determine who is owed asylum is likely to produce morally objectionable outcomes. This problem results from a specific attribution problem, namely, the probabilistic reasoning and inherent uncertainties involved in establishing causal responsibility within the complex causal scenario of climate-related refugee movements. Because of this attribution problem, determining who is owed asylum is likely to be both under- and over-inclusive. Both under- and overinclusion lead to unjustified deprivations of basic rights for some climate refugees. The aim of the paper is not to undermine the significance of reparative obligations in addressing climate change related problems in general. Establishing the morally crucial link between actions or omissions of states is extremely important for assigning responsibility in many cases of climate change related loss and damage. In the last decades, with developments in attribution science, a growing number of litigations aim to hold emitting states responsible for cli (...truncated)