When I last provided an overview of this topic for Free Movement in late 2024, I argued that the legal rights of people affected by climate and disaster displacement were, in many ways, hiding in plain sight. The foundations existed; the challenge was persuading courts, practitioners, and policymakers to recognise them.
Two years later, I think we are asking a different question.
There is still no internationally recognised legal category of ‘climate refugee’, nor has the Refugee Convention been amended to accommodate climate change. But there are arguably more interesting developments taking place.
Developments in the courtroom
The field has continued to mature through the use of existing legal frameworks. Human rights, immigration, constitutional and environmental law are increasingly being deployed to protect people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by climate change. Rather than waiting for an entirely new legal regime, lawyers are beginning to make better use of the one we already have.
Importantly, this conversation has evolved beyond ‘movement’ alone. For many communities, the primary objective is to remain safely where they are; not to migrate. Climate mobility is now understood as encompassing three interconnected rights: the right to stay where adaptation makes that possible; the right to move when remaining is no longer safe or viable; and the right to protection throughout that process. This more nuanced understanding has gradually displaced the overly simplistic question of whether ‘climate refugees’ exist.
A clear example of this shift came in November 2025, when the First-tier Tribunal considered a case involving climate change. A Filipino national was granted leave on Article 8 human rights grounds, due to a finding that the cumulative impacts of climate change – including the loss of livelihoods, deteriorating mental health and significant obstacles to reintegration – would make return disproportionate.
This case is significant. It demonstrates that climate-related harms can be recognised through existing legal protections, without forcing every case into the Refugee Convention framework. In many respects, it reflects exactly the direction many practitioners have advocated for years.
The international landscape has also continued to develop. Last summer, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion which recognised that climate change may result in both internal and cross-border displacement and reaffirmed the relevance of human rights protections.
The advisory opinion is already being relied upon by courts and lawyers in climate-related cases. For example, the European Court of Human Rights referred to the opinion in Greenpeace Nordic and Others v Norway (application no. 34068/21), requiring Norway to carry out an environmental impact assessment before opening new oil and gas fields.
It has also been invoked in efforts to secure implementation of the court’s landmark judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland (application no. 53600/20). This reinforced the principle that states have a legal obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights, and more broadly under international law, to protect individuals from the serious adverse effects of climate change. The advisory opinion was also cited by counsel in the First-tier Tribunal case discussed above to support the submission that states have an obligation under international law to prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing environmental harm.
It would also be remiss not to acknowledge the significance of the UN General Assembly’s adoption of a resolution welcoming this advisory opinion. At first glance, it seems little more than yet another UN resolution. However, it represents years of sustained advocacy by Pacific Island states, Indigenous leaders, young people, civil society organisations, lawyers and campaigners determined to ensure that the court’s opinion did not simply become another celebrated judgment left on the shelf.
The same grassroots movement that began with the youth-led organisation Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and ultimately persuaded Vanuatu to champion the request for an advisory opinion has continued to push for its implementation. The adoption of the resolution was not inevitable; it followed months of negotiations, amendments and political resistance, with several states seeking to dilute the text before it was eventually adopted by an overwhelming majority. The resolution sends a political message that the court’s conclusions are becoming part of the broader international conversation about what climate justice requires, though it stops at creating new legal obligations for states.
Written submissions have now been made before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, from which we await a third international advisory opinion on climate change and state obligations. A landmark advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also recognised states’ obligations to prevent climate-related displacement and identified measures such as humanitarian visas, temporary residence permits and refugee protection as means of safeguarding those displaced by climate change. Collectively, these developments suggest that a coherent body of international jurisprudence is beginning to emerge.
Bringing more lawyers into the movement
Earlier this year, a report was published following the first UK conference dedicated to international protection in the context of the climate crisis. It distils the key legal challenges, emerging areas of consensus and practical recommendations identified by practitioners, academics, policymakers and civil society, providing an accessible resource for those working at this intersection.
Building on that work, Earth Refuge and Refugee Legal Support will shortly launch a UK Practical Toolkit on Climate Displacement, bringing together practical guidance from practitioners on client interviewing, gathering expert evidence, case studies and litigation strategy. These resources reflect a broader shift from asking whether the existing legal framework can respond to climate mobility, to how it should be applied in practice.
Another welcome development is the publication of the ‘Practical toolkit: international protection for people displaced across borders in the context of climate change and disasters‘, which is accompanied by training resources from the Kaldor Centre’s Climate Mobility Hub. There is also the Climate Mobility Case Database, which collects judicial decisions concerning internal and cross-border displacement related to climate change or environmental degradation, and is a useful resource for practitioners to learn from and contribute to.
There are more opportunities for legal professionals to become directly involved in shaping this evolving field. Applications for the inaugural ‘Climate Mobility & Legal Innovation Programme’ are open until 13 August 2026. The programme will bring together lawyers, judges, scholars and frontline advocates from around the world to develop creative, cross-disciplinary legal strategies for those who move, those who stay, and those trapped in place.
A long way to go
None of this means the legal gaps have disappeared. Most people displaced by climate change remain internally displaced and therefore never engage international refugee law. Significant challenges remain around planned relocation, loss and damage, migration pathways, and long-term protection. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that, for many communities, the preferred outcome remains the ability to stay safely in their homes for as long as possible.
Yet compared with 2024, there is a noticeable sense that the conversation has moved in a positive direction. Rather than focusing solely on whether climate mobility warrants legal recognition, attention is turning to how existing legal frameworks can be used. Strategic litigation is expanding, courts are engaging more confidently with climate-related harms, and practitioners are beginning to develop the guidance and resources needed to translate legal principles into meaningful protection.
Perhaps the most important change over the past two years is that we are finally beginning to use the rights we already have, without the need to pursue the creation of new ones.
