Environmental Causes and Consequences of Migration: A Search for the Meaning of "Environmental Refugees", The

Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Winter 2004 by Keane, David

It is possible to expand the 1951 definition along human rights lines. The five freedoms contained in the definition, i.e., freedom from persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group and political opinion, are all rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.36 The Refugee Convention clearly recognizes that refugee status results from the denial of human rights.37 The Refugee Convention also recognizes the right to seek safety, as contained in Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration.38 Both the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant for Economic and Social Rights acknowledge the "inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources" and "in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence."39 Therefore, a solution to the problem of environmentally displaced persons would be to extend the 1951 definition contained in the Refugee Convention in line with those developments in international human rights law. However, such an extension would meet severe opposition from States for a number of reasons.

First, expanding the definition would lead to a devaluation of the current protection for refugees.40 This is because migration due to environmental factors is rarely, if ever, a result of governmental oppression. Second, the vast majority of environmentally displaced persons are internally displaced because they are not fleeing State persecution. Internally displaced persons do not meet the definitional requirements of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention. Third, only a limited expansion of the definition would be possible given the enormous number of environmentally displaced persons.

It is interesting at this point to note the regional expansion of the refugee definition by the Organization for African Unity (OAU) and the Cartagena Declaration. The OAU Convention adds a second paragraph to the definition contained in the Refugee Convention: "|T]he term refugee shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing the public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality."41

Similarly the Cartagena Declaration states that "in addition to containing the elements of the 1951 Convention . . . [the definition] includes among refugees, persons who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violations of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed the public order."42 The Declaration was intended as a key instrument in the search for durable solutions to the problems faced by thousands of Central Americans forced to leave their homes as a consequence of generalized violence that resulted from the serious conflicts in the region during the 1980s.43 The subsequent San Jose Declaration "callfs] upon States to urge existing regional fora dealing with matters such as economic issues, security and protection of the environment to include in their agenda consideration of themes connected with refugees, other forced displaced populations and migrants."44