Abstract:

As with the various environmental changes in history, the effects of climate change, today called a separate environmental crisis, also lead to population mobility and location changes. In recent years, before the courts, cases have been seen in which it is assessed the appropriateness of the states to expel individuals to places where they are faced with the risks caused by the impacts of climate change. The decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the protection of persons displaced due to climate change referred to as "climate refugees" in the case of Teitiota v. New Zealand and the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal are the first decisions on a national and international basis. These decisions have assessed whether the principle of refugees and the human rights law includes those that will significantly affect their lives or living conditions due to the negative effects of climate change. The assessments included in both decisions have given the first signals that the effects of climate change could move on the obligations of the states regarding the principle of non-return. In this context, even if it is not clearly included in the European Convention on Human Rights, the principle of refusal, which is interpreted as an absolute protection by the European Court of Human Rights, is expected to appear in allegations of violation of refusal decisions that will lead to a threat to their lives due to climate change in the future. No decision has yet been made by the European Court of Human Rights on climate change-related locations. However, it is believed that the coverage of protection in the context of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the principle of the removal of court claims contains the potential to help ensure protection against persons displaced due to climate change.

Keywords: