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

A resident of Kiribati appealed the denial of refugee status in New Zealand to the New Zealand High Court, arguing the impacts climate change and rising seas would have on Kiribati. The courts rejected the claims and denied refugee status.

The claimant lost at all three levels of the New Zealand judiciary, the High Court, Court of Appeals, and New Zealand Supreme Court. Following the decision by the New Zealand Supreme Court, Teitiota filed a communication with the UN Human Rights Committee to press his case there.

Background
The island nation of Kiribati consists of a series of coral atolls in the central Pacific Ocean. As a low-lying island nation, it is one of the countries most at risk to sea level rise.

Indeed, sea level rise and ocean acidification have already had impacts on Kiribati. Increased flooding and the salinization of fresh drinking water are long term threats to the nation's survival.

Responding to these threats, Ioane Teitiota relocated his family to New Zealand and applied for refugee status in 2010. When his claim for refugee status was denied, he appealed to the New Zealand High Court.

The High Court found that the impacts of climate change on Kirabati did not qualify the appellant for refugee status because the applicant was not subjected to persecution required for the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

Teitiota appealed to the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court of New Zealand, each of which successively dismissed the case on the grounds that Teitiota did not qualify as a refugee under international human rights law.

Relevant Laws and Principles

 * 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees

Ruling
Teitiota's claim for refugee status was denied at each level of the New Zealand court system.

The UN Human Rights Committee rejected the claims by reasoning it is not an immediate danger, given the ten to fifteen-year timeframe, so there has an adequate period for intervening to protecting citizens from a country becoming submerged. However, the Committee highlighted that the countries should not deport individuals who suffer from a violation of their right to life as a result of climate change-induced circumstances irrespective of whether it is caused either through sudden-onset climate events or slow-onset climate events.

Takeaways
Although the New Zealand courts rejected the refugee claim, the New Zealand Supreme Court did not rule out the possibility that “that environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other natural disasters could create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction.”

Links

 * Sabin Center Database
 * Grantham Research Institute