I appreciate your video! I began using the term “climate refugee” because I’d read it was different from an “environmental refugee” to clarify it was not a natural disaster cause the displacement. I think I prefer “climate migrant” because it just means they are on the move, and you can you the term for a person relocating within their own country.
I think that your point about the lack of consensus in the definition of 'climate refugees' and concern around the erosion of rights if we revisit official refugee definition are both excellent. Another interesting point that I've heard is that avoiding using the term 'climate refugee' is an 'out' for receiving nations, as it drops the perceived need of migrating peoples. As was already pointed out by Cade, the variation of definitions that each country adopts to determine their own threshold for deservingness of asylum seekers is a huge issue that leaves a patchwork of protections. I don't know that avoiding 'climate refugee' in academic terms will really resolve any issues - just like most papers, we have to define our terminology and justify the use - I don't think that this is any different.
I have a different concern that the term "climate refugees" just highlights, which is that the 1951 Convention definition is too narrow, or more specifically that it takes a laundry list approach as opposed to a functional approach to definition. The need for protection grows out of the incapacity or unwillingness of the state of nationality to give protection under conditions of imminent and necessary need for strong protections at the risk of some substantial level of harm. That kind of functional approach is going to reframe the whole problem. It's not whether "climate refugee" makes it on the laundry list or not, it's whether an asylum seeker meets the criteria for need. I think the effects of climate change will cut quite differently on that depending on the situation. In any event, my main experience is with Japanese law, which is notoriously narrow. in its asylum policy You basically have to have your name written on a literal "hit list" of a government (or the equivalent), which you can produce evidence of, to meet its interpretation of Art 1. I don't like a definition that allows a government the discretion to avoid its obligations that easily. I need to think through it in more depth and see what the literature says about these things if I'm ever going to write about it though.
![เปิดใจ พี่ญา คนรุม หลังทัวร์ลง หนักสุดในชีวิต!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2-OJZRtclro/mqdefault.jpg)
I appreciate your video! I began using the term “climate refugee” because I’d read it was different from an “environmental refugee” to clarify it was not a natural disaster cause the displacement. I think I prefer “climate migrant” because it just means they are on the move, and you can you the term for a person relocating within their own country.
I think that your point about the lack of consensus in the definition of 'climate refugees' and concern around the erosion of rights if we revisit official refugee definition are both excellent. Another interesting point that I've heard is that avoiding using the term 'climate refugee' is an 'out' for receiving nations, as it drops the perceived need of migrating peoples. As was already pointed out by Cade, the variation of definitions that each country adopts to determine their own threshold for deservingness of asylum seekers is a huge issue that leaves a patchwork of protections.
I don't know that avoiding 'climate refugee' in academic terms will really resolve any issues - just like most papers, we have to define our terminology and justify the use - I don't think that this is any different.
I have a different concern that the term "climate refugees" just highlights, which is that the 1951 Convention definition is too narrow, or more specifically that it takes a laundry list approach as opposed to a functional approach to definition. The need for protection grows out of the incapacity or unwillingness of the state of nationality to give protection under conditions of imminent and necessary need for strong protections at the risk of some substantial level of harm. That kind of functional approach is going to reframe the whole problem. It's not whether "climate refugee" makes it on the laundry list or not, it's whether an asylum seeker meets the criteria for need. I think the effects of climate change will cut quite differently on that depending on the situation.
In any event, my main experience is with Japanese law, which is notoriously narrow. in its asylum policy You basically have to have your name written on a literal "hit list" of a government (or the equivalent), which you can produce evidence of, to meet its interpretation of Art 1. I don't like a definition that allows a government the discretion to avoid its obligations that easily.
I need to think through it in more depth and see what the literature says about these things if I'm ever going to write about it though.
Thank you, Ma'am!
informative video pakistani peoples also effecting climate changing year by year
I think the term 'climate refugee' should not be used in an academic context.
Thanks for this input! Would you say there are better, alternative terms?
Hi i have queastion about refugee.if i come to canada apply refugee my chilreds age 19.20.22 can apply refuge together with me
Thank you for reaching out. UNHCR has useful information specifically for Canada, but they advise consulting legal advice too: help.unhcr.org/canada/
Thank you dear
You're Beautiful Melissa 🙂