Using climate-induced displacement in the United States as an example, this chapter puts forth ideas that climate change resiliency, which has primarily focused on impacts to social-ecological systems, should be expanded to include ‘governance resiliency’ – the resilience of governance itself, or the processes through which impacts and effects are managed. Climate change governance has largely focused on spatial relationships, including vertical, multi-layered ones from the local to international levels, and horizontal relationships among various governmental and non-governmental actors. With effects as prevalent, long-lasting, and regressive as those arising from climate change, however, this spatial approach lacks two governance dimensions: the temporal, and the more imperceptible structural dimension, which is connected to systemic marginalisation commonly associated with inequality, poverty, and discrimination. The chapter analyses the spatial, temporal, and structural dimensions together through five fact scenarios that consider sudden and gradual changes as well as decisions not to govern. In considering such multidimensional governance and the scenarios, this chapter argues that transformative governance, or what we refer to as transformative resiliency, is required to address systemic inequities and to achieve sustainable governance resiliency.

This chapter assesses the compliance of institutional DRMs with the fair trial criteria developed. Three types of DRMs will be subjected to scrutiny. These are permanent judicial mechanisms, arbitration and non-judicialised DRMs. As judicial mechanisms are principally established to resolve employment disputes, the focus is on the leading international administrative tribunals, namely, the UN Dispute and Appeals Tribunals and the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation. Second, the chapter will focus on the role international arbitration plays in resolving claims against IOs. The chapter shows that little thought has been given to implement arbitration as a sustainable and viable option to resolve claims against IOs. Unless a specialised arbitral regime is created that takes into account the particularities of disputes involving IOs, the chances of arbitration providing for an appropriate DRM are dim. Finally, the chapter makes a brief comment on non-judicialised DRMs, such as ombudsperson processes. While such DRMs play an important complementing role, they cannot replace an independent and impartial forum empowered to render a binding judgment. Finally, the chapter highlights that alarmingly, in too many situations, private parties cannot access any DRM at the international level at all. Access to justice is thus comprehensively undermined.

Much ink has been spilled by scholars,1 including the present author,2 on displacement associated with climate change, popularly called ‘climate refugees’, recognising the need to address the protection gap relating to them. Despite the recognition in the very first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that climate change could cause forced displacement of millions of people,3 climate negotiators have been slow (and reluctant) to address the issue.

According to scientists, over the course of 141 years of climate records, there has never been a warmer January than in 2020.1 In the same way, February 2020 was ranked as the second-hottest February for the same period.2 The consequences of rising atmospheric temperatures are altering the global climate system. Sudden- and slow-onset climate-related disasters, in combination with socio-economic disparities and conflicts, are increasingly related to human mobility. After many years of invisibility, this topic is receiving increasing attention in international, regional, and national legislative and policy spheres.

The conclusion of a relationship agreement between the IOM and the UN in 2016, alongside the organisation’s rebranding to ‘UN Migration’, gave the appearance of a significant shift in a normative direction, but was it? And what are the implications for people displaced by climate change? The IOM has never been a UN agency. In fact, characteristic features of the IOM that set it apart from the UN are preserved in the 2016 Agreement, including the express retention and acknowledgement of its institutional independence. Moreover, the UN and the IOM are oriented to achieve quite different goals. Whereas the mandate of the UN is normative and protective, fundamentally concerned with upholding human rights, the constitutional mandate of the IOM is ‘to make arrangements for the organized transfer of migrants’ and to provide various migration services ‘at the request of and in agreement with the States concerned’. Accordingly, the IOM’s adoption of the UN name and logo could be misleading.

This chapter investigates the current degree of protection granted by German courts for persons displaced in the context of environmental disasters and climate change. The research shows that German courts address the situation of persons displaced in the context of natural disasters when evaluating a ban on deportation according to Art. 3 ECHR. Especially with regards to three countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia – the German courts analysed the effects of natural disasters in a very detailed manner. While not always regarded as a conclusive element on their own, the natural disasters seem to support requests for a ban on deportation. The German cases are examples of how protection might be possible outside the Refugee Convention. They tie in well with the HRC’ Teitiota v. New Zealand decision and show that human rights law can play a significant role. In spite of the lack of a specific legal framework to address persons displaced due to natural disasters and climate change-related harm, we should not ignore the legal instruments that already exist. This chapter attempts to increase the general awareness of Art. 3 ECHR non-refoulement for people displaced due to natural disasters.

This chapter provides a historical and theoretical background to the development of the settlements along the Trans-Israel Highway. It explains the geopolitical role of settlements in Israel/Palestine and how their production has transformed during the last century. It then presents key theories on the welfare nation-state and the global turn toward neoliberalism and the market economy, while explaining the Israeli version of the phenomenon. Illustrating the entangled relations between nationalism, territoriality, and privatization, the chapter presents the complexity of the subject and explains the entangled relations between nationalism, territoriality, and privatization. Offering a general view of the development of the different settlement phenomena along the Green Line and the Trans-Israel Highway, this chapter prepares the reader for those that follow, while explaining what makes this area a privately developed national project.

With sea levels rising and small island developing states feeling the impacts of climate change, migration due to inhospitable conditions or the submergence of island nations is becoming more of a pressing issue. There is a clear gap in the legal protection, or lack thereof, that will be afforded to climate-displaced persons. This chapter delves into the third of a triple injustice against island nations and their people by focusing on an expected third wave of forced migration caused by climate change. The chapter (1) explores the issues that island nations will face because of either becoming uninhabitable or submerged, with a particular focus on matters arising under the Law of the Sea Convention; (2) examines the current efforts and missed opportunities within the UNFCCC process and outside, including both national and international efforts; and (3) finally, makes recommendations on how this gap for legal protection can be addressed. Throughout this chapter, it reveals the unfairness of some burdens placed on SIDS to addressed climate-induced displacement and the fact that the lethargy in addressing the protection gaps presents a frightening uncertain future for island nations and its people.

The suburbanization of the 1990s illustrates the further privatization of the settlement mechanism along the Green Line. During the 1990s, the Israeli government, together with the Israel Land Administration and the Ministry of Housing and Construction initiated nine new settlements in this area. Unlike earlier examples, where the construction of new settlements was a collaboration between national institutions, settling movements, and small-scale private initiatives, the state now put the process into the hands of large-scale private developers. Thus, while the earlier planning was done for, or by, the future settlers, taking in account their desires, needs, and abilities, the planners now had also to consider the investment and financial interests of the various entrepreneurs. Consequently, rentability became a crucial aspect in planning and executing new settlements, eventually shaping the built environment. This chapter focuses on the “Stars” settlements – nine new sites initiated by the state in the early 1990s that demonstrate the completion of the transition to a privatized national project. Analyzing the architectural and urban characteristics of these new settlements, as well as their development mechanism, location, and intended target population, the chapter provides additional insight into the changing relationship between the state of Israel and its privatizing market.

Due to its complexity, climate-induced migration can be explored from different angles and disciplines. Over the past decades, scholars and practitioners engaged with this topic have extensively discussed the terminology in use, the (still) controversial link between human mobility and climate change, and the legal status of those fleeing environmental disruptions. However, a comprehensive understanding of the justice-related angle of this issue seems underdeveloped. What precisely is the ‘injustice’ where people forced to migrate because of slow-onset, rapid-onset, or extreme-weather-related events are concerned? The following chapter seeks to answer this question by examining climate-induced migration through the lens of environmental justice (EJ). To this end, the chapter proceeds first by analysing the EJ paradigm, its origin, and its main features. Second, it justifies the choice of using this concept by emphasising how its multidisciplinary nature, multidimensional understanding of justice, and multi-scale (spatial and temporal) approach well suit climate-induced migration. Finally, it presents a proposal to remedy the injustice of climate-induced migration with an EJ-oriented pathway. This proposal introduces a community-based EJ approach rooted in the notion of collective capabilities.

This chapter focuses on how the application of an IO’s jurisdictional immunities prevent victims from accessing justice at the national level. The discussion first focuses on the basis of an IO’s domestic legal personality which allows suits to be brought against them at all. The chapter then identifies how IO immunities are applied today. Whereas IO immunities were intended to be functional, they have become by and large de facto absolute. This means that a claimant’s case is procedurally defeated and the merits do not get a chance to be ventilated. There are some indications that the tide might be shifting in favour of the claimant. Still, the way in which claims against IOs are addressed at the national level is unsustainable and requires a fundamental reframing.

We live in a ‘denial of justice age when it comes to the individual pursuit of justice against IOs. The victims of the cholera epidemic introduced in Haiti by UN peacekeepers in 2010 are still awaiting justice. They have not yet had an opportunity to access a court to realise their rights. The victims of the Srebrenica genocide for which the UN assumed moral responsibility have not received an effective remedy.