UN Human Rights Committee Views Adopted on Teitiota Communication

Following denial of refugee status by the New Zealand court system, Ioane Teitiota filed a communication with the UN Human Rights Committee. He claimed New Zealand had violated his right to life under the International Covenant on Social and Political Rights.

In January 2020, the Committee ruled that his case was admissible because Teitiota had sufficiently substantiated his claim that sea level rise posed an imminent risk to his right to life. However, the Committee dismissed the case on the merits.

Background
See Ioane Teitiota v. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Ruling
The Committee dismissed the communication on the merits, ruling that any deprivation of life must be personal, rather than rooted in the general conditions, except in the most extreme cases. The Committee therefore upheld New Zealand's determination that Teitiota had not provided evidence that he personally faced any real chance of being harmed in a land dispute, would be unable to grow food or access potable water, or otherwise faced life-threatening conditions.

The Committee did recognize that environmental degradation and climate change constitute serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to enjoy the right to life. They found that as sea-level rise poses a risk of rendering Kiribati uninhabitable, there may come a time when "the conditions of life in such a country may become incompatible with the right to life with dignity."

Takeaways
The Teitiota climate refugee case was an early test for a type of case that is certain to become more common in the coming decades. The fact that the UN Human Rights Committee acknowledges that climate change, sea-level rise, and environmental degradation could violate an individual's right to life is therefore significant.

Individual opinion of Committee member Duncan Laki Muhumuza (dissenting) is also important to consider: "...While it is laudable that Kiribati is taking adaptive measures to reduce the existing vulnerabilities and address the evils of climate change, it is clear that the situation of life continues to be inconsistent with the standards of dignity for the author, as required under the Covenant. The fact that that is a reality for many others in the country does not make it any more dignified for the persons living in such conditions. The action taken by New Zealand is more like forcing a drowning person back into a sinking vessel, with the “justification” that after all, there are other passengers on board. Even as Kiribati does what it takes to address the conditions, for as long as they remain dire, the life and dignity of persons remains at risk."

Links

 * Sabin Center Database
 * Amnesty International case description
 * refworld