Post 1 in the Special Issue on Climate-induced (im)mobilities

Irene Sacchetti (PhD Candidate, Nottingham Law School)

The Interplay between Identity Formation and Protection

Who are “climate refugees”, and do they qualify for international protection under existing international law? I explored these questions with my students during a refugee law seminar. While most agreed that climate refugees are forced to move due to climate change impacts, some added an interesting twist. They suggested that those moving from rainy Britain to sunny Southern Europe could also be considered climate refugees because “rain in the UK is annoying and depressing”. 

The reality of climate-induced mobilities is far more complex, extending beyond “rainy UK”, and yet it poses a continuous challenge for researchers due to the lack of recognition and protection under international law. Defining individuals on the move due to climate change remains remarkably contested. Terms like “climate migrants” or “climate-induced persons” fall short in fully capturing the intricate and multidimensional experiences of such individuals. Current academic discussions are constrained by legal categories and preconceived terminology, failing to encapsulate the nuanced personal experiences of those affected. The deliberate use of “climate refugee” is aimed at provoking a discourse surrounding “white” anxieties related to an “impending loss of control and the dissolution of boundaries”. Are climate refugees moving due to climate change, or are they compelled to move due to exploitative and extractivist colonial practices and histories of dispossession that have contributed to the socio-ecological destruction of the planet?

While saving these answers for another time, I want to focus here on the relationship between identity formation, (mis)recognition, and (mis)protection, especially regarding climate refugees. I argue that the main challenges in providing adequate protection for climate refugees stem from the way their identities are constructed through processes of “othering” and how these impact their agency, shape their protection responses, and ultimately affect their destiny. The law responds in accordance with this artificial identity construction, playing a profoundly disempowering role that reinforces the portrayal of needy refugees confined to a normative and idealised identity that erodes their agency and personal story narration.

Othering Processes and the Climate Refugee

The concept of “otherness” is crucial in identifying power imbalances that contribute to the classification of individuals into hierarchical groups and the assignment of established identities, shaping our sense of belonging and how others perceive us. Existing narratives around climate mobility play a crucial role in producing the subject of the climate refugee through discursive practices and epistemic dominance. The climate refugee becomes “the other of climate change”. The process of racialisation of the climate refugee, who cannot be easily categorised, is compounded by the challenge of accurately quantifying the number of people displaced due to climate change. The complex causes of climate-induced migration make it difficult to categorise individuals as “climate refugees”, leaving the subject of a climate refugee “undecidable”. Framing the climate refugee in these terms has far-reaching implications, resulting in dehumanization and stigmatization, which may justify the lack of legal recognition and protection for those affected. The law constructs both identities and protection, while at the same time it denies them. The law is often used as a means to justify and perpetuate the marginalization of refugees by reinforcing racial stereotypes. It categorizes refugees as victims, commodities, or threats, leading to differential treatment of those considered “deserving” and “undeserving”. For instance, the EU’s unprecedented decision to implement the Temporary Protection Directive for Ukrainian refugees but not for Syrian refugees in 2015 underscores the idea that some refugees are deemed deserving of protection while others are viewed as potential threats to national security. Factors such as geopolitical interests, perceived cultural proximity, and processes of discrimination, including racial prejudice, play a significant role in determining whether certain individuals are deemed worthy of protection. Western countries often use the victim/threat/commodity constructs to maintain control and power over the climate change-migration discourse, justifying exclusion, misrecognition, and the lack of protection for refugees.

The language used to discuss migration often implies an uncontrolled invasion, portraying climate refugees as a force/threat that needs to be stopped for security reasons. Water-related terms like “flows,” “waves,” and “tides of migrants” are used to convey the idea of an uncontrollable and unstoppable phenomenon, shaping narratives and perpetuating hostility, discrimination, and racialization as well as becoming a site of struggle and resistance. These negative perceptions are reinforced by political discourse and media representations of migrants as a threat to European security. In response, securitisation of national borders inevitably traps already poor and vulnerable populations, deepening power asymmetries that perpetuate injustices and inhumane responses to migration.

The reverse facet of identity construction and othering narratives hinges on the victim/commodity trope, assuming that those affected by climate change are helpless and passive victims, whose destiny is already compromised by high vulnerability and inhabitability of their homelands. These narratives articulate forms of “white saviourism” used by state actors to justify interventions in Global South countries to target specific actions such as planned relocation or forced resettlement, while obscuring historic responsibilities.

Remaking Identities, Resisting the Paradigm

The existing protection paradigm is contingent on stereotyped identities and restricted conditions to fall within the protection spectrum, with the 1951 Refugee Convention being the prime example of the complicity of law in pre-establishing such an artificially constructed refugee’s identity. The Teitiota case exemplifies concerns of border protection rather than individual protection, where the UN Human Rights Committee decision is arguably keen to defer the decision in the next 10-15 years. The Committee noted that Kiribati, the Pacific Island home of the applicant Ioane Teitiota, will not become uninhabitable in the next 10 to 15 years, leaving this timeframe for the State to act against climate change effects. Will Teitiota deserve protection only once his homeland is be completely swollen by the ocean? It would be interesting to hear the answer from the Committee.  Conversely, the recent Falepili Union offers an example of victim-commodification to advance Western geopolitical interests under the guise of “protection” for future climate refugees and “safe migration pathways to Australia”. 

Contrary to such artificial identity constructions of passivity and victimisation in the existing paradigm, those at the frontline of climate-related disasters have personal stories and individual agency to account for. Rather than passive victims, climate refugees assert themselves as active agents in developing and increasing resilience to climate change impacts, shaping their destinies while advocating for stronger climate action. It is crucial to recognise them and their agencies as such. 

The failures and limitations of existing protection responses force us to move away from disempowering forms of protection. Creating a space of resistance, especially within refugee law, that remakes the climate refugee’s identity becomes essential to recognise and protect these new legal subjectivities. Identity is not a static concept awaiting creation, discovery, or definition; instead, it is intricately interwoven into the continuous process of self-realisation and expression. And within these tensions, the opportunity to envision an alternative form of protection emerges, which is what I am currently exploring.