UN Human Rights
Council Committee
2017 Study Guide
Sabrina Brooker &
Guillermo Palomar
Welcome Letter
A warm welcome to the Delegates of the Human Rights Council!
We are thrilled to be chairing the Human Rights Council, a committee we are passionate about.
Sabrina is currently a third year student at the European Law School of Maastricht which is located
in the Netherlands. Although originally half British, half Thai, she has spent a good portion of her
life living in the “Cockpit of Europe”, more commonly known as Belgium. She is currently the
Head of Delegations for UNSA Maastricht and will therefore be keen to evaluate the fruitful
discussion between delegates. Naturally, as a legal scholar she has an analytical and critical
approach to Human Rights and looks forward to hearing the opinions and proposed solutions of
each State. Outside of the committee sessions and MUN conferences, Sabrina will most likely be
found debating pointlessly on the merits of pineapple in relation to pizza.
Guillermo is currently undertaking a double degree in Law and Economics at Pompeu Fabra
University (Barcelona). He has participated in several MUNs across Europe, which he
acknowledges to have been very beneficial in training his oratory problem-resolution skills. Some
of his main areas of interest include the causes of major ethnic conflicts in the world, the Arab
Spring and refugee studies. In this regard, he has taken a course at the London School of Economics
on international conflict resolution and one on refugee law and forced migration at the University of
New South Wales (Sydney), and has recently become a enthusiast of international law moot court
competitions. So he is really looking forward to hear about your creative thoughts on the topics
covered this year!
At this year’s C’MUN HRC, you will have the opportunity to explore two crucial issues that are
rarely dealt with, namely the situation in Kashmir and the question of environmental refugees. The
first one is a geopolitical issue where a Southern Asia territory is torn in a conflict between India
and Pakistan. The second one concerns a bigger amount of people as climate disasters can occur
everywhere in the world, from the Sahara desert to the Vanuatu islands. In both cases, millions of
lives are at stake, facing a gruesome predicament.
We worked to provide you with a thoroughly detailed study guide. We expect you delegates to use
the information well and it is meant to helping you finding sub-topics, especially for the Moderated
Caucuses. The resolutions can only be complete and efficient if you study all fields that can be
examined.
We hope that you Delegates will enjoy debating those arousing topics, and we look forward to
heated debated and a great time in Barcelona!
If you have any questions, never hesitate in contacting us!
The Dais of the C’MUN UNHRC
Sabrina Brooker
Guillermo Palomar
Introduction to the UNHRC
The United Nations Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body within the United Nations
system and under the UN General Assembly. It is composed of 47 Member states elected for a
three-year term. No member is allowed to serve two terms consecutively. Founded in 2006 by
resolution 60/251, its first session took place from the 19th to the 30th of June 2006 and it replaced
the UN Commission on Human Rights, which was a subsidiary organ of the ECOSOC and reported
directly to the Secretary General. Resolution 60/251 states that “when electing members of the
Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and
protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto”.
The UNHRC aims at tackling a broad variety of issues, from women’s rights abuse to the violation
of rights of indigenous peoples. It protects and strengthens human rights around the globe. The
meetings are held at the UN office at Geneva.
If a member of the Council has committed human rights abuse during its term, the UN General
Assembly can suspend its rights at its discretion. In order to suspend a member state, a two-thirds
majority vote by the General Assembly is required.
The HRC works closely with the Universal Periodic Review, commonly referred to as the UN-UPR,
a mechanism examining the human rights performance of the member states of the UN. The 47
member states of the HRC and the HRC chairperson compose the UPR and conduct country
reviews.
Despite seeking to find efficient compromises between the member states, the HRC has faced
criticism. It has been accused of highlighting exaggeratedly the human rights abuse conducted by
Israel or the United States, and not condemning sufficiently those committed by Saudi Arabia,
which has been appointed as the Chair of the Panel of the Human Rights Council. The United States
and Israel, followed by Canada or Australia had more than once boycotted the Council. It has also
been denounced that this committee leaves states such as China or Russia unpunished, preferring
focusing on Western countries.
Topic A : Human Rights Violations in Kashmir
INTRODUCTION
Map on the current territorial subdivision of the Kashmir region. Source: BBC
Kashmir is a state in the northern border of India with China in the north and east and Pakistan in
the west and northwest. In the last 70 years Kashmir has been subject to numerous Human Rights
violations.
The territorial conflict in Kashmir started with the state’s disputed accession to newly independent
India in 1947. During the subcontinent's partition in accordance to the Indian Independence Act,
Kashmir was free to choose whether or not to join India and Pakistan. Kashmir has a predominantly
Muslim population, which was ruled by Maharaja Hari Sign, who followed the Hindu faith. During
the partition Maharaja hoped to that the state might remain independent of Pakistan and Indian.
However, after a guerrilla war invasion by Pakistani tribesmen in an attempt to free the majorityMuslim region from Hindu rule. The Maharaja then appealed to India for aid, signing an agreement
to accede to India.
Since 1947 India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the territorial area. Both countries
subsequently made claims to Kashmir, based on the history and religious affiliations of the
Kashmiri people. This has resulted in several abuses of Human Rights from both states, which
include extrajudicial killings, rape, torture and civilian massacres.
DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM
Armed insurgents groups from both Pakistan and India have violated the rights of both Hindu and
Muslim civilians through rape, abductions, discriminatory attacks, extra judicial killings and
murder. Since the start of the conflict there have been a number of attacks against unarmed
demonstrators and ethnic cleansings. Despite pressure from the intentional community and various
non-governmental organisations there has been little to not accountability for the human rights
violations by the security force personnel. There are various legal and practise obstacles inhibiting
justice for the victims of the conflict. Both sides have failed to take aducate responsibility and
actions in order to ensure these human rights violations do not progress.
TIMELINE OF THE EVENTS
1947: The subcontinent was partitioned into two independent states of Hindu majority India and
Muslim-majority Pakistan. The Kashmir Ruler agreed to accede to India after an invasion by
Pakistani Tribesmen. War breaks out between India and Pakistan over the region.
1948:India raises Kashmir in the UN Security Council, which in Resolution 47 calls for a
referendum on the status of the territory. The resolution also calls on Pakistan to withdraw its troops
and India to cut its military presence to a minimum. A ceasefire comes into force, but Pakistan
refuses to evacuate its troops as both countries cannot agree on the terms of demilitarization.
1949:On 1 January, the ceasefire between Indian and Pakistani forces leaves India in control of
most of the valley. Pakistan gains control of part of Kashmir.
1951:The UN and Pakistan demands a referendum to take place, whilst India based on the elections
in the Indian-administered state of Kashmir back accession to India deems it a referendum to be
unnecessary.
1953: The pro-Indian authorities dismiss and arrest Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah, leader of the
governing National Conference, after he takes a pro-referendum stance and delays formal accession
to India. A new Jammu and Kashmir government ratifies accession to India.
1957: India declares that Kashmir is a fundamental part of India. Kashmiri activists continue to
insist on independence
1950s: China gradually occupies eastern Kashmir and then later defeats India in a war over the
control of Aksai Chin
1963: Pakistan concedes the Trans-Karakoram Tract of Kashmir to China.
1965: Pakistan sends armed Pakistani forces to join a rebel group across the ceasefire line, which
leads to more violence across the whole of the Kashmir Valley.
1965: The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 ends in ceasefire and a return to their previous positions.
1971: The Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 erupts. Pakistan descends into civil war as East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh) demands independence from Pakistan. The Indo-Pakistan War ends in a defeat
for Pakistan which lead to the Simla Accord.
1972: The Simla Accord is signed. Both countries agreed to respect the ceasefire line and resolve
difference over Kashmir through peaceful means such as negotiations and a final settlement of the
conflict.
1974: There is a demand for the Opposition Plebiscite Front in Indian-administered Kashmir
referendum is dropped in return to extensive autonomy within the Indian government.
1984: The Indian Army seizes control of the Siachen Glacier, an area in which
Pakistan has attempted to capture in the following decade.
1987: After the state election in Jammu and Kashmir the Muslim United Front declared that the
election was rigged causing more rebellion within the valley. Further protests and anti-India
demonstrations in the Kashmir Valley followed by police retaliation, arrests and curfew orders by
the Indian police and army.
1987: India accuses Pakistan of provoking the rise pro-independence insurgency on the Jammu and
Kashmir Liberation Front by posting fighters across the Line of Control. This is denied by Pakistan
1989: At the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan a great deal of weapons are released into
Kashmir and Pakistan provides further training to Kashmiri and foreign militant groups in Kashmir.
The Kashmiri independence movement becomes more Islamist in its ideology.
1990s: The conflict continues with Kashmiri militants training in Pakistan and India deploying
hundreds of thousands of troops in Jammu and Kashmir. Both sides violating numerous human
rights. An estimated one million people take to the streets in protest of the Indian occupation and
more than 40 people are killed by the police. Many of the 162,500 Hindu community in Kashmir
flee the area to refugee camps in Jammu.
1993: The single largest civilian massacre took place after the death of two soldiers. The Indian
Paramilitary shot 43 people dead or burned to death.
1990s: An estimated 34,000 people have been killed since 1978.
1998: India and Pakistan take part nuclear tests in a show of strength.
1999: Pakistani militants enter the Indian-administered Kargil district. This then causes another war
between India and Pakistan. India responds to the attack through a number of airstrikes into
Kashmir, causing Pakistan to break of relations.
2000: India in an attempt for peace puts the ceasefire agreement into effect. However, violence
continues.
2001: Kashmiri assembly in Srinagar attacked and 38 people are killed. Followed by an Attack on
Indian parliament in New Delhi.
2003: India and Pakistan restore diplomatic ties based on the Simla Accord.
2004: Prime Minister Singh and President Musharraf take part in the first round of peace talks in
the UN General Assembly.
2006: Second round of Indo-Pakistan peace talks take place with support from the international
community.
2007: Amnesty International and other human rights organizations report of gross human rights
violations from India that include systematic arrests and detentions, enforced curfews, rape and
torture. India denies many of these claims by stating that is done in an attempt to stop terrorism.
2010: An protester is killed by the Indian Army in the Indian-administered Kashmir, sparking
protest across the Kashmir Valley. The protest decrease after the government announced measures
to ease tensions after the protest claiming over 170 deaths.
2011 August: Chief Minister Omar Abdullah pardons the 1,200 young men who threw stones at
security forces during the anti-government protests in the Kashmir Valley in 2010.
2011 August: 2000 unidentified bodies in unmarked graves is found near the Line of Control.
Many claims have stated that this is may be the result of arrest by security forces.
2011 September: India accuses Pakistan of opening fire and retaliates by killing three Pakistani
soldiers at the Line of Control.
2013 February: Kashmiri Jaish-e-Mohammed member Mohammad Afzal Guru if found guilty and
hanged over the 2001 Indian parliament terror attack.
July 2013: A protest ends to bloodshed as 4 Kashmiri people were killed and 44 injured through
shooting towards the protesting crowd by the Indian Border Security Forces.
2013 September: The Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan agree to reduce the number of violent
outbreaks in the border of Kashmir.
2014 August: Peace talks are canceled after India accuses Pakistan of intruding into its internal
affairs. This is caused by the actions of Pakistan’s High Commission in Delhi was found
communicating with Kashmiri separatist. The Indian Prime Minister claims that Pakistan is waging
a proxy war against India in Kashmir then follows this.
2014 October: Violence increase in the border of Pakistan and India leaving 18 people dead.
Pakistan and India exchange strongly worded warnings about each other actions.
2015 March: India's Bharatiya Janata Party is sworn into government in Indian-administered
Kashmir for first time with local People's Democratic Party.
2015 September: After the enforcement of a ban on eating beef, Muslim separatist protest by
closing shops, business and government departments in Indian-administered Kashmir
2015 November: One more casualty is added to the large number of deaths, after more violent
protest due to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi visit to Indian-administered Kashmir.
2016 July: After security forces killed a popular militant and commander of the Hizbul
Mujahideen; Burhan Wani, violent protests erupted in the Kashmir Valley. This lead the authority
to impose a curfew and cut internet services and mobile phone networks in many areas.
2016 August: There is a curfew in most parts of Indian-administered Kashmir is lifted but schools,
shops and most banks remain shut and mobile and internet services remain suspended. At least 68
civilians and two security officials have died. Over 9,000 people have been injured in
approximately 50 days of violence .
2016 September: gunmen on an army base in Indian-administered Kashmir killed 18 Indian
soldiers. India and Pakistan exchange harsh words as a result.
2016 September: Indian claims to have created "surgical strikes" against the militants along the defacto border with Pakistan in Kashmir. This is strongly disputed by Pakistan.
BLOCK POSITIONS
The positions of the several actors positions involved in this long-lasting conflict have proved to be
highly conflicting in relation to Human Rights violations in the Kashmir region. It should be noted
that the region has been controlled by three powers during the past decades: India, Pakistan and
China. First, India controls 43% of the territory –including most of Jammu, the Kashmir Valley,
Ladakh and the Siachen Glacier—, whereas 37% of the territory is under Pakistani rule (namely
Azad Kashmir and the northern areas of Gilgit and Baltistan). Finally, since the victory in the 1962
Sino-Indian War, China has administered the other 20% of the territory, which it named Aksai
Chin. In this context, military conflicts in the Kashmir region have been the predominant trend, with
several wars involving such states and numerous low-scale clashes. Moreover, progressive
deterioration of diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan since the failure of the 2003
ceasefire agreement, as a result of repeated military strikes, fierce popular insurgency and crossaccusations between the several parties, has lead to the resuscitation of the conflict.
It must be taken into account that the majority of the people living in the Kashmir region are
Muslim (more than 60% of the population), which makes it the only state in India where Islam is
the majoritarian religion. This is one of the reasons why the local population have demonstrated
strong opposition to the Indian administration of the region, preferring instead independence or
union with Pakistan to the current situation. In this regard, high unemployment within the region
and widespread discontent with the repression of Kashmiri street protesters undertaken by security
forces have contributed to the worsening of the situation. Moreover, fears to a full-scale war (in
which nuclear capability of the involved parties definitely adds a scariest dimension) and the
delicate position of the countries’ precarious economies in face of eventual economic sanctions by
the international community act as deterrent factors to an even bloodiest scenario. Overall, over
34,000 civilians have reportedly been killed while perpetrators of human rights violations enjoy a
high-level of impunity and thus have not been held accountable for such crimes, according to
Amnesty International.
The parties involved in the conflict: INDIA
The ascent to power of the new Indian government of in 2014 implied a toughening of the country’s
position in relation to Pakistan. Increased internal unrest in the Kashmir region following protests
has met the response of new cross-border raids lead by the Indian military into Pakistani-controlled
Kashmir. India has argued that these insurgents are based in Pakistani territory and consequently
employs military tactics to combat them. In fact, notable domestic believe in India that the country
has remained passive for too long amid repeated terror attacks by groups assisted and sheltered by
Pakistani intelligence services, both puts pressure and encourages a more combative stance towards
its neighbouring state. Past cross-border raids undertaken by India were largely unknown by its
population, who grew frustrated over their country’s apparent inaction, so the current publiclyacknowledged discourse of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government on a heavy-handed
approach to the issue clearly sets out a departure from the traditional government’s response to it.
Historically, India has claimed that, as the Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession
in October 1947 —handing control of the Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir over to India— the
region is theirs, having been validated by the Indian Independence Act and the departing British
Empire. It also sustains that the UNSC Resolution No. 47 (1948) accepted India’s stand regarding
all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan, and that Pakistan has not yet removed its military
forces. Moreover, India has accused Pakistan of funding military groups in the region to create
instability, and blames Pakistan for waging a proxy war and for spreading anti-India sentiment
among the people of Kashmir, through the media, to alter Kashmiri opinion. Lastly, according to
India, most regions of Pakistani Kashmir, especially northern areas, continue to suffer from lack of
political recognition, of economic development and of basic fundamental rights.
The parties involved in the conflict (II): PAKISTAN
Recent cross-border raids undertaken by Indian security forces into Pakistani soil in an alleged antiterror operation, were rapidly condemned by Pakistan, which accused India of an “unprovoked
active aggression”. In this regard, Pakistan has repeatedly denied the hosting and funding of militias
in the Kashmir region and instead blames Indian armed forces and counter-insurgent militias under
its control for the mass killings of innocent civilians, the raping of thousands of women aged from 7
to 70 years old and other widespread human violations in the area. Moreover, building on the fact
that the Kashmiri population is mostly Muslim, Pakistan has strengthened the need for a plebiscite
to take place so as to provide a definitive solution to territorial disputes over the region, which is
supported in its view by UN resolutions and popular unrest against Indian security forces.
Moreover, Pakistan rejects Indian claims to Kashmir, insisting that the Maharaja did not have the
support of most Kashmiris when he signed the Instrument of Accession and that he handed over
control of Jammu and Kashmir under duress, thus invalidating the legitimacy of the claims. Finally,
Pakistan claims that India violated the Standstill Agreement and that Indian troops were already in
Kashmir before the time in which the Instrument of Accession was signed.
The parties involved in the conflict (III): CHINA
The last of the contending parties, as opposed to India and Pakistan, has undertaken a rather lowprofile standpoint to the issue. In brief, China has progressively watered down its former acceptance
over Indian claims concerning the Kashmir region. And now it has instead demonstrated higher
sympathy for Pakistan, on which China has exercised increased influence over the years, namely in
the “Northern Areas” of Gilgit-Balgistan. In this regard, appetizing infrastructure projects
concerning the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which aim at providing easier access
from western China to the port of Gwadar (located in the Pakistan’s shore of the Arabic sea), are
currently being developed by important Chinese companies. Whatever underlying economic
interests may be at stake in Kashmir, Chinese public authorities are now referring to the need that
both India and Pakistan address the issue on diplomatic grounds, in a demonstration of the
country’s interest in securing stability in the region. Indeed, when asked in 2016 about rumors on a
shift of the country’s stance towards Pakistan, Foreign Minister spokesperson Geng Shuang stated:
“As a neighbour and friend to both Pakistan and India, we hope the two countries will properly
address their differences through dialogue and consultation, manage and control the situation, and
jointly work for the peace and stability of South Asia and the growth of the region”. In sum, China
has publicly displayed a relatively careful approach to the issue whilst maneuvering in favor of its
economic and geo-strategic interests, consisting of a silent support towards Pakistan in order to
counter India’s military and economic power, which is China’s bigger enemy in the zone.
In this regard, delegates are expected and encouraged to engage in thorough research so as to
determine how can their own sovereign views with respect to the referred events in the Kashmir
region be fitted into their diplomatic relations with the States that are directly concerned with the
issue as well as other relevant international actors.
PAST UN ACTIONS
During the several decades that the conflict in Kashmir has lasted, the UN has in several occasions
stepped in amid growing tension between Pakistan and India. Early in 1948, following the attacks
of Pakistani nationals and tribesmen after the subcontinent’s partition, the Security Council passed
UNSC Resolution No. 47 under Chapter VI of UN Charter, which deals with the peaceful
settlement of disputes. The Security Council’s recommendations were structured in three steps.
First, Pakistani was asked to use “its best endeavours” to secure the withdrawal of Pakistani
nationals and tribesmen from the zone of the conflict. Second, India was asked to “progressively
reduce” its military presence to the minimal level necessary to maintain law and order in the region.
Lastly, India should appoint a Plebiscite Administrator in order to hold a free and impartial
plebiscite on Kashmir’s future status. In this regard, it is worth underlying the fact that, as of today,
Resolution No. 47 remains unimplemented. All in all, the approach taken by the Security Council
was timid and did not fully address the legal grounds of the dispute.
After failure by India to adopt proposals on demilitarization for the region previously submitted by
the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) —the purpose of which was to mediate on the
dispute between the two countries—, the UN substituted this body by a single UN Representative:
Owen Wixon. During the following years, several Resolutions by the Security Council were
adopted calling the parties to peacefully address the tensions between them, withdraw of armed
troops from the region and observe the ceasefire agreement. By means of example, facing
increasing nuclear tests undertaken both by India and Pakistan, the Security Council unanimously
adopted in 1998 UNSC Resolution No. 1172 condemning the nuclear tests and asking both
countries to stop further tests as well as to refrain from provocative moves in order to resume
dialogue between those two States. The Resolution also encouraged Pakistan and India to find
dialogued solutions to address the root causes of the tensions between them, expressly mentioning
the Kashmir issue.
QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ADDRESS
•
How
can
Human
Rights
be
brought
to
the
affected
population?
•
How can the Human Rights Council work alongside other committees to tackle this issue?
•
How can the violence and torture Kashmir me be effectively condemned and brought to an
end?
•
Should Kashmir become an independent state or should the region be divided between India
and Pakistan?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amnesty International UK. (2001). India: Civilian deaths in Kashmir are unacceptable [Press release].
Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/india-civilian-deaths-kashmir-areunacceptable
Amnesty International. (2015). “Denied”: Failures in accountability for human rights violations by security
force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir (Report No. ASA 20/1874/2015). Retrieved from
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa20/1874/2015/en/
Amnesty International. (2015). India: Accountability still missing for human rights violations in Jammu and
Kashmir region. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/india-accountability-stillmissing-for-human-rights-violations-in-jammu-and-kashmir/
BBC. (2016, October 4). Kashmir territories profile. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-southasia-11693674
BBC (2016, September 29). Kashmir profile - Timeline. BBC South Asia. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-16069078
BBC. (2016, November 23). Kashmir: Why India and Pakistan fight over it. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/10537286
BBC (2016, November 23). Kashmir: Why India and Pakistan fight over it. BBC Asia. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/10537286
Behind the Kashmir conflict - summary (human rights watch report, July 1999). (1996). Retrieved February
14, 2017, from Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/summary.htm
Bukhari, SWH, and T. Parveen. (2014). China’s Approach Towards Kashmir Conflict: A Viable Solution.
Journal of Professional Research in Social Sciences, 1(1), 14-30.
Dasguptal, S. (2016, September 26). China indicates there is no change in stance on Kashmir issue.
Retrieved from The Times of India Website: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/China-indicatesthere-is-no-change-in-stance-on-Kashmir-issue/articleshow/54529196.cms
The Human Rights Crisis in Kashmir. (1993, June). . Retrieved from
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA937.PDF
Insight on Conflict. (2010, December). Kashmir: conflict profile. Retrieved from
https://www.insightonconflict.org/es/conflicts/kashmir/conflict-profile/
Joshi, S. (2016, September 30). Kashmir: Why is India’s Modi going on the offensive? Retrieved from CNN
Website: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/29/opinions/kashmir-modi-joshi/
Kashmir: Conflict Timeline. (2010, October ). Retrieved February 14, 2017, from Insight on Conflict,
https://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/kashmir/conflict-profile/conflict-timeline/
Kashmir insurgency. (1965). Retrieved February 14, 2017, from Kashmiri Library,
http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/
The Economist. (2010, August 29). The Chinese connection. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2010/08/china_and_kashmir
Timeline of the Kashmir Conflict (2016, November). CNN. Retrieved from
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2016/09/world/kashmir-conflict-timeline/kashmir-timeline-snippet.html
The Telegraph. (2001, September 24). A brief history of the Kashmir conflict. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A-brief-history-of-the-Kashmir-conflict.html
UN Security Council. (1948, April 21). Security Council resolution 47 [The India-Pakistan Question],
S/RES/47 (1948).
UN Security Council. (1998, June 6). Security Council resolution 1172 [On international peace and security],
S/RES/1772 (1998).
Topic B : The Question of Environmental Migrants
Introduction
Over coming years, migration flows related to climate change are expected to increase, particularly
in the world’s poorest countries. This is because climate change is expected to increase the
frequency and severity of extreme environmental events, such as drought, sea level rise, floods and
hurricanes.
The links between environmental changes and migration are extremely complex. Migration is often
the result of a variety of layered causes – economic, social and political – which are accentuated by
changing environmental conditions as well as frequently by developmental and demographic
conditions. The patterns of movement of environmental migrants can also vary – these may be
internal within a country or international; voluntary or forced; temporary or permanent. Forced
migration might result from an environmental catastrophe such as a tsunami or flood, or a
government-instigated relocation, while more gradual process of migration could be caused by slow
onset environmental deterioration, such as the long-term effects of drought on agriculture
experienced in parts of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Somalia and Egypt. Although not all related to
climate change, extreme weather events, during the past few years, affected over 520 million people
according to the 2016 World Disasters report from the International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Torrential rain caused the recent floods in Malawi in January 2015,
which resulted in the displacement of more than 330 000 people, according to UNICEF. Although a
figure subject to much debate, around 200 million people will be permanently displaced by climate
change by 2050, according to the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change .
Discussion of the problem
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) anticipates that climate change will
affect migration flows in three main ways: firstly the effects of warming in some areas will
gradually reduce agricultural productivity and degrade ecosystem services such as clean water and
fertile soil. Secondly, the increase in extreme weather events – especially heavy rainfall and
resulting flash or river floods in tropical regions – will affect increasing numbers of people,
resulting in mass displacement. Thirdly, sea-level rise will permanently destroy extensive low-lying
coastal areas – resulting in the permanent relocation of millions of people.
Since more and more people live in regions and locations highly vulnerable to disasters and other
impacts of climate change, planned relocation, together with migration, has an important role to
play in future strategies to respond and adapt to such impacts. Accordingly, States may use planned
relocation as a potential policy option to protect affected populations.
UNHRC emphasises the need to distinguish between resilient and vulnerable groups
of people, both of which might migrate in response to climate change. Resilient people (those
which tend to have more assets, education and access to adaptation strategies) use voluntary
migration as a way of enhancing their resilience. This might involve a move to a non-agricultural
job in the city, for example. Conversely, vulnerable people have fewer assets and may be forced
to move for survival, in search of food, or work to buy food.
Where possible, policy should support a transition toward
livelihoods that are not climate dependent. Particular focus should be given to those that are
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. For example, these individuals should be prioritised
by national schemes for improved education or vocational training. Indeed, it is vital that states
do not wait until migration has begun before making provisions for access to housing, land and
property for people displaced by climate change. If conditions worsen to the point where the
state must intervene to relocate populations, extreme care must be taken to reduce the negative
effects of such a move.
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in collaboration with United Nations High
Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) have established a long open dialogue and pointed out
possible response to such crises. Firstly they assert, any forced relocation — where realistic options
to choose from are no longer available — must be an absolute last resort. Second, planning is
essential and any scheme should be part of a new sustainable development programme rather than a
temporary measure. Third, it is vital that people to be moved are consulted on how the process
could be best designed to work for them. Finally, the process does not end once people have moved.
In their new homes they should be supported to restore and improve their livelihoods and incomes.
Policy should be designed to foster understanding and co-operation on this subject between
neighbouring countries. While there is as yet no recognition that climate-displaced people be
given refugee status, the human rights of climate-displaced people must be recognised. The brief
concludes that more information on the complex impacts of migration and displacement is vital
to create effective policy agreements for the future.
Timeline of the events
1987 M Governments adopt the Montreal Protocol, which is a treaty aiming at restricting emissions
of chemicals damaging the ozone layer. While it doesn't deal with climate change specifically, the
Montreal Protocol becomes a model for how to rein in man-made emissions through international
agreements.
1988: NEW YORK — The U.N. General Assembly endorses the creation of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. It is set up the same year by two U.N. agencies, the World
Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environmental Program, to assess the existing
knowledge about climate change.
1990: LONDON — The IPCC releases its first scientific assessment of climate change. It says
greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are increasing due to human activity, resulting in warming
of the Earth's surface.
1992: RIO DE JANEIRO — World leaders gathering for the first Earth Summit sign the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the first international treaty aimed at limiting
greenhouse gas emissions. However, it sets no binding emissions targets.
1997: KYOTO, Japan — The Kyoto Protocol is adopted, setting binding emissions targets for
wealthy countries. The United States doesn't join the treaty because it doesn't include big
developing countries such as China and India. The U.S. also says the treaty would harm its
economy.
2004: MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin signs a bill confirming Russia's ratification of the
Kyoto Protocol. The move means countries representing more than 55 percent of global emissions
support the treaty, a condition for it to take effect.
2007: OSLO, Norway — Former U.S. vice president and climate campaigner Al Gore and the IPCC
share the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to raise awareness about global warming.
2009: COPENHAGEN, Denmark — The first attempt to craft a global emissions treaty to replace
Kyoto, which is set to expire in 2012, falls apart amid disputes between rich and poor countries over
who should do what. Acrimonious negotiations end with a voluntary deal inviting countries to
present nonbinding emissions targets for 2020.
2011: DURBAN, South Africa — U.N. climate talks produce a major breakthrough as countries
agree to adopt a universal agreement on climate change in 2015 that would take effect five years
later and apply to all of them.
2013: STOCKHOLM — The IPCC says it's "extremely likely" that human influence is the
dominant reason for warming temperatures recorded since the mid-20th century.
2015: PARIS — More than 190 governments meet in the French capital to finish what's envisioned
as a landmark deal to rein in greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.
Points for further reflection and action
The following points are intended to inspire further thinking on some of the key issues that the
international community will have to address.
Movements within national borders
There is broad consensus that much of the movement prompted by climate change will take place
within national borders. The 'Foresight' report brings fresh insights by positing that people may be
forced to migrate in ways that increase their vulnerability, for example by migrating to areas of high
environmental risk, such as low-lying urban areas in mega-deltas or slums in water-insecure and
expanding cities.
Primary responsibility for the protection and well being of affected populations rests with the States
concerned. At national level, States will need to reinforce the resilience and coping mechanisms of
their citizens and communities, while also anticipating and making provision for internal migration
as a form of adaptation. In some cases, movements will take the form of 'forced internal
displacement'. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are an important guide in this
regard. The African Union is to be commended for going a step further and formulating a binding
treaty for the protection of internally displaced people. Under the AU Convention for the Protection
and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa - known as the Kampala IDP Convention States Parties commit to "take measures to protect and assist persons who have been internally
displaced due to natural or human made disasters, including climate change." [15]
To protect the rights and meet the needs of the displaced, governments in the developing world will
need strong support from the world’s industrialized and industrializing States which bear primary
responsibility for the process of climate change. It will also be important for regional frameworks
and international cooperation to buttress action at national level and contribute to building national
capacity. However, the nature of international support must change.
Traditionally, the international community has responded to disasters and displacement in
emergency mode, establishing camps, distributing food and water, building schools and clinics.
This approach must be reconsidered. The billions of dollars spent on relief in recent decades have
evidently not led to the sustainable strengthening of national and local capacities. National
adaptation plans will need to take full account of the linkage between the effects of climate change
and human mobility. This includes making provision for the growing proportion of people who are
forced to leave their land and move to urban areas, where it makes no sense to accommodate them
in camps or to establish separate services for their benefit. A development-oriented and area-wide
approach is thus required, ensuring that the most vulnerable and marginalized members of society
are able to enjoy the human security and human rights to which they are entitled.
It is equally imperative for the international community to make good on promises to set in
place a massive programme of support for adaptation in developing countries where this is needed.
Such action should take full account of the fact that women - especially poor women - are often
amongst the seriously affected by climate change and natural disasters.
Cross-border movements
A quick analysis of existing national legislation indicates that a number of countries have included
provisions whereby persons affected by natural disasters would not be returned to their countries of
origin and would enjoy a form of temporary protection. However, the vast majority of States make
no provision in their legal frameworks for the legal immigration and sojourn, even if temporary, of
residents of islands subjected to sea level rise or others exposed to the impacts of climate change.
At the global level, the Bellagio Expert Roundtable on Climate Change and Displacement
recognized that a range of international and regional instruments may provide responses to various
forms of external displacement related to climate change. However, these instruments only cover a
limited group of displaced persons. They generally have not been applied to persons who are forced
or compelled to cross an international border due to natural disasters, or who cannot return as a
result of such events, either temporarily or permanently. Nor do they apply to people who cannot
return because their land has become uninhabitable as a result of the long-term effects of climate
change.
At the same time, it is clear that the 1951 Convention may apply in specific situations, for instance,
where "victims of natural disasters flee because their government has consciously withheld or
obstructed assistance in order to punish or marginalize them on one of the five [Convention]
grounds." These actions may take place in situations of armed conflict, generalized violence, public
disorder or political instability, or even in peacetime.
The idea of 'ecological refugee' was first mentioned in 1948, but it was not until 1985 that the term
'environmental refugee' was coined to highlight the potentially devastating need for humans to
escape from the impacts of unchecked development and pollution. Then and now, however, the
term 'refugee' is legally incorrect in this context. Adopting the terminology of "climate refugees" or
"environmental refugees" would only complicate and confuse UNHCR's efforts to protect the
victims of persecution and armed conflict.
Even if they are not refugees, however, such people are entitled to be supported and to have their
voices heard and taken into account. But what form should that support take?
UNHCR explored this question during expert discussions organized as part of
commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the Refugee Convention and the 50th anniversary of the
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 2011. The Bellagio Expert Roundtable examined
protection gaps and potential responses linked to climate-related external displacement, and reached
a number of broad understandings. [The Norwegian Government's Nansen Conference on Climate
Change and Displacement (June 2011) developed 10 Nansen Principles, which include recognition
that, "A more coherent and consistent approach at the international level is needed to meet the
protection needs of people displaced externally owing to sudden-onset disasters. States, working in
conjunction with UNHRC and other relevant stakeholders, could develop a guiding framework or
instrument in this regard."
During an intergovernmental event at ministerial level organized by UNHCR in December
2011, UN Member States adopted a Ministerial Communiqué which states that, "We will reinforce
cooperation with each other and work with UNHCR and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate,
to deepen our understanding of evolving patterns of displacement and to agree upon ways to
respond to the challenges we face in a changing global context."
Pursuant to pledges made by a group of States during this intergovernmental event, UNHRC in
collaboration with UNHCR will work together with them in the development of a framework on
external displacement related to climate change, which could take the form of temporary or interim
protection arrangements. Consultations with interested States could assist in identifying scenarios in
which such arrangements would be activated, and could help to develop procedures and standards
of treatment for affected populations.
Regional and sub-regional treaties, such as the free movement protocols of the Economic
Community of West African States, could also be invoked in this respect. While those protocols
were developed primarily to strengthen economic integration, rather than to serve as refugee or
human rights instruments, they may have a new relevance in relation to the plight of people who
move from one country to another due to the consequences of climate change and natural disasters.
Planned relocation
In addition to expected increases in migration and displacement, planned relocation is likely to be
another policy response to environmental pressures. Governments may legitimately wish to move
communities out of harm's way or from areas that are no longer inhabitable. This is a policy option
that has received relatively little attention.
States have a lot of experience with development-forced displacement and resettlement (DFDR),
the term now used more commonly than development-induced displacement. This refers to the
involuntary displacement of people and communities due to large-scale infrastructure projects. [2In
this context, resettlement refers to a process of relocation to assist displaced persons to replace their
housing, assets, livelihoods and land and to ensure their access to resources and services.
Despite guidelines from the World Bank and multilateral banks intended to ensure that resettled
populations are at least as well off as they were before resettlement, the record of DFDR is not a
positive one. There seems to be a sense within the DFDR community that successful cases are the
exception and that in the vast majority of cases, the resettled population is left much worse off than
before.
If planned relocation becomes a component of State policies on adaptation to climate change, more
research will be needed to identify good practice examples and what made them successful, while
also developing additional guidance on protecting the human rights of those who will be affected.
Small island nations
Steps must also be taken to address the plight of people living on small and low-lying islands whose
lives, livelihoods, culture and identity are threatened by rising sea levels. Some creative adaptation
efforts are underway, but in-country relocation or migration abroad is also already occurring. While
most inhabitants will wish to remain, posing very specific adaptation challenges, some will wish to
migrate abroad. Where will these islanders go as conditions become more and more untenable over
time?
Like climate change processes themselves, movement away from small island and/or low-lying
coastal states is likely to be slow and gradual, although some events such as cyclones or king tides
may, in the interim period, trigger more sudden but probably temporary (and internal) movements.
It has been suggested that some small island and/or low-lying coastal States may cease to exist
owing to sea-level rise and its impacts on the State and its people. There is a general presumption of
continuity of statehood and international legal personality under international law, so statehood will
not be lost automatically with the loss of habitable territory, nor is it necessarily affected by
population movements. The language of “disappearing” or “sinking” islands ought, therefore, to be
avoided.
Nonetheless, there are profound humanitarian and protection issues that remain to be addressed, and
the international community is encouraged to examine policy, legal, operational, humanitarian and
resource responses. This is a particularly complex area, which is likely to require various strategies
and responses. These may include adaptation measures, such as relocation and/or migration. Any
measures put forward to affected communities should respect their right to self-determination.
Questions a resolution must address
•
•
•
How can the Human Rights Council work alongside other committees to tackle this issue?
Which measures can be taken by the committee to resolve the problem of human rights
violations faced by the environmental refugees?
How can the member states contribute to bettering the situation of refugee camps?
Bibliography
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/11/30/timeline-of-key-events-in-un-effortagainst-climate-change
World Disasters Report, 2013, IFRC page 228;
http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Documents/Secretariat/201410/WDR%202014.pdf 3. Stern, N. 2006
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, London.
Foresight: Migration and Global Environmental Change (2011), Final Report, The Government
Office for Science, London, p. 13.
http://www.idpguidingprinciples.org/
UNHCR, Summary of Deliberations, Climate Change and Displacement: Identifying Gaps and
Responses, Bellagio Expert Meeting on Climate Change and Displacement, April 2011,
http://www.unhcr.org/4da2b5e19.html
UNHCR, "Forced Displacement in the Context of Climate Change: Challenges for States under
International Law", Submission to the 6th Session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term
Cooperative Action under the Convention, 20 May 2009,
UNHCR, Summary of Deliberations on Climate Change and Displacement,
thttp://www.unhcr.org/4da2b5e19.html
http://pnc.iucnp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Chairpersons-Summary-Nansen-Conferenceon-Climate-Change-and-Displacement.pdf