Abstract

The case of Teitiota v. New Zealand marked a watershed moment in climate migration law. When Ioane Teitiota sought asylum in New Zealand due to rising sea levels threatening his home nation of Kiribati, his case sparked unprecedented legal questions about climate change's role in refugee protection. Although New Zealand's courts rejected Teitiota's application, the subsequent review by the UN Human Rights Committee established groundbreaking precedent. This paper investigates how the Teitiota decision illuminates the gaps between traditional refugee law, built around individual persecution, and the collective threat posed by climate change. The Committee's acknowledgment that environmental degradation could trigger non-refoulement obligations marks a significant shift in international legal thinking. Yet substantial obstacles remain. The current requirement to demonstrate immediate personal danger creates a problematic threshold for climate displacement cases, where threats often develop gradually. This analysis argues for fundamentally reimagining refugee protections to accommodate environmental displacement. As climate change accelerates, the Teitiota case offers crucial lessons for developing legal frameworks that can effectively protect climate migrants. The international community must move beyond traditional refugee paradigms to create new mechanisms addressing the unique challenges of environmental displacement.

Keywords