TheCollectiveRightsofEnvironmentalRefugees
(Firstdraft)
JörgenÖdalen([email protected])
DepartmentofGovernment
UppsalaUniversity
Historically,societieshaveconstantlydisplayedanastoundingabilitytoadapttodrasticchangesin
theirenvironment.Climatechangeisverylikelytobeardownonthelimitsonthisadaptability.This
willbeparticularlytrueinthelongrun,asclimaticchangesthreatentotransformweatherpatterns,
destroycoastlines,causeenvironmentaldisastersandgiverisetoarmedconflicts(Barnett2003:12;
Bell2004:135Ͳ6;Suhrke1994:474).Ithasbeenestimatedthattherearealreadyabout25million
peopleintheworldseekingrefugefromenvironmentaldegradation.Aswearebeginningto
experiencetheconsequencesofclimatechange,thisnumberislikelytoincreasesignificantly.
Climatechangecausesdrasticenvironmentaldisruptions––suchaseartherosion,watershortages,
waterpoisoninganddeforestation––whichforcepeopletoleavetheirhomesandseekrefugein
otherplaces,eitherwithinoroutsidetheirowncountry.
Unsurprisingly,thevastmajorityofcurrentandfutureenvironmentalrefugeesarecitizensof
developingcountries.Mostofthemwillendupeitherwithintheirowncountries,andbecome
internallydisplaced,ortheywillmovetoneighboringdevelopingstates.Onlyaminoritywillfind
theirwaytodevelopedstates.Theemergingphenomenonofenvironmentalmigrationthusonce
againhighlightsthevulnerabilitiesofdevelopingstatesandtheircitizens.Themostunpromising
estimatessaythatthenumberofenvironmentalrefugeescouldreachabout200millionby2050.If
theseestimatesturnouttobecorrect,wewillwithinfortytofiftyyearsexperienceadoublingofthe
totalnumberofmigrantsintheworld(Brown2007:5;Myers2002;2005;Stern2006:3).Itwould
alsomakemigrationinresponsetoenvironmentaldegradationthemostpervasiveformofforced
migrationtooccurinthe21stcentury(Bell2004:136).
Themostconspicuousenvironmentalcauseforthedisplacementofpeopleisprobablytherisingsea
levelandthesubsequentfloods.TheIPCChasestimatedthatbytheendofthiscenturythesealevel
willrisebetween28and43centimetersasaresultofthermalexpansionandthemeltingofglaciers
andicecaps(IPCC2007:409).Moreover,regionalvarianceswilllikelyresultinsmallislandstates
sufferingdisproportionateconsequencesintermsoflandloss(IPCC2007:413Ͳ14;2008).Butthe
risingsealevelwillnotonlyaffectsmallislandstates;countrieswithlowͲlyingcoastalareaswillalso
sufferextensivelandloss.Inregionswithhighpopulationdensities,e.g.inSouthAsia,theproblems
willbeevenmoreaccentuated.AcountrylikeBangladeshhasalreadybeenquiteseverelyaffected
byfloodingwhichhasresultedinsaltcontaminationofpreviouslyarableland(McFerran2007).
Thepossibilityofthisbleakfutureobviouslybringsforthquestionsaboutwhatkindofnormative
claimscanbemadeonthepartofenvironmentalrefugees.InthispaperIwilldiscusstheparticular
1
issueofwhatkindofrightsenvironmentalrefugeescanclaim;whatisthesubstanceandbasisof
suchrights?
CollectiveOwnershipoftheEarthandtheRighttoRelocation
Thephilosophicalliteratureontheissueofenvironmentalrefugeesisstillquitescant.Thereisindeed
anexpandingdebateonthemoregeneralnormativeissuesofhowtheresponsibilitiesandcostsfor
mitigationandadaptionshouldbedistributed.Butmanyofthemorespecificissuesrelatingto
climatechange,suchastheoneofenvironmentalrefugees,havestilltoreceivemoreexpansive
discussions.Still,onecanfindafewrecentattemptstoaddresstheissueoftherightsof
environmentalrefugees.MathiasRisse(2009)hasdefendedanaccountoftherightsof
environmentalrefugeeswhichhebasesontheclassicidea,foundinforinstancetheworksofJohn
LockeandHugoGrotius,thathumanitycollectivelyownstheearth.Sincetheearth’’sresourcesand
spacesaretheaccomplishmentsofnoone,atthesametimeastheyareneededbyeveryonein
ordertomakealiving,themostplausibleviewoftheownershipofnaturalresources,arguesRisse,is
thattheybelongtohumankindcollectively.Morespecifically,thiscollectiveownershipisegalitarian,
inthesensethatallhumans,nomatterwhenandwheretheyareborn,havesomesortof
symmetricalclaimtotheearth’’snaturalresources.Thisideaofegalitarianownershipneednotentail
thateveryhumanhasalegitimateclaimtoanequalshareofthesecollectivelyownedresources.
Instead,RisseinterpretsthisideatosaythatallcoͲownersoughttohaveanequalopportunityto
satisfybasicneedstotheextentthatthisturnsoncollectivelyownedresources(Risse2009:286Ͳ
288).
Fromthestandpointofcollectiveownershipoftheearththen,wecanderiveindividualentitlements
inawaythatstressesthesymmetricalpositionofhumanbeingsinrelationtoexternalspacesand
resourcesthattheyhavedonenothingtocreate,butthattheyallneedforsurvival.Further,this
meansthatstatescanclaimexclusivecontroloverportionsoftheoriginallycommonlyowned
resourcesandspacesoftheearthonlyiftheyacceptcertainconditionsthatmakesuchan
arrangementacceptabletoothercoͲowners.Onesuchconditionisthatstatesmustacceptaproviso,
ora““rightofnecessity””whichtakesprecedenceoverthearrangement,andoveranypreferencesto
forinstancekeepmigrantsout,insituationsofemergencywhereindividualsareunabletosatisfy
theirbasicneeds(Risse2009:283,293).
Thisrightofnecessityprovidesthebasisforarighttorelocationforenvironmentalmigrants.This
rightincludesademandonhostcountriestoprovidesupportforpeoplewhofindthemselvesunable
toexercisetheirownershiprightsintheirnativelocationdueto,forinstance,environmental
degradation.Thissupportoughttoamountto,atleast,providingopportunitiesforindividualstolead
alifeatthelevelofbasicͲneedssatisfaction.Whenthecircumstancesaresuchthataterritoryis
eitherlostcompletelyorsodamagedastomakeitinhabitable,itisnolongerpossibletorespectthe
troubledparty’’scoͲownershiprightsbysupportingthemintheircurrentlocation.Instead,theonly
waytorespecttheserightsistohelptheaffectedpeoplerelocatetonewterritory(Risse2009:284,
293).Itshouldbepointedoutthatthesekindsofobligationonlyapplytostatesinsofarastheyhave
thecapacitytofulfillthemwithoutmakingitimpossibleforsomeoftheirpresentcitizenstosatisfy
theirbasicneeds(Risse2009:291).
2
Thiswayofdefendingarighttorelocationhasaninterestingupshot,namelythatwedonotreally
needtoworrytoomuchaboutthecausesbehindthekindofenvironmentaldegradationthat
pressurepeopletoleavetheirhomes.Peoplewillretaintheirrighttorelocationwhentheirhome
environmentisdestroyed,regardlessofwhethertheenvironmentalchangesarenaturalormanͲ
made.Thiscontrasttheargumentforrelocationbasedonacollectiveownershipoftheearth
approach,fromargumentsbasedoncompensation.Onecouldcertainlyarguethatdeveloped
countriesowedevelopingcountriescompensationforthesufferingtheyhavecaused,andwill
continuetocause,throughtheirextensiveemissionsofgreenhousegases.Suchanargument,while
itmighthavesomestrength,issensitivetocomplicatedquestionsabouttheextenttowhichcertain
environmentalchangesareactuallycausedbytheactionsofdevelopedcountries,orwhetherthey
arecompletelynatural.Further,compensationbasedargumentsarealsosensitivetotheissueof
whether,evenifwecanestablishcausalitybetweencertainenvironmentaldamagesandhistorical
emissions,today’’scitizensofdevelopedcountriescanreallybeheldresponsiblefortheoften
uninformedandunintendedactionsofpreviousgenerations.Anapproachbasedontheidea
collectiveownershipoftheearthsidestepsthesecomplexissues.
ButtherearealsoproblemswithRisse’’swayofconstruingtherighttorelocationforenvironmental
refugees.Oneisthatitseemstobenormativelyindifferentbetweenthetwoalternativesofeither
relocatingapopulationonanindividualbasis,orrelocatingapopulationonagroupbasis.Risse
discussesthecaseofKiribatitoillustratehisaccount,andwecanusethesamecasetoillustratethis
problem.KiribatiisanislandnationsituatedinthePacificOcean.Itisthreatenedbyextinctiondueto
risingsealevelsandsalinationcausedbyclimatechange.TheKiribatigovernmentiscurrently
planningforthecompleterelocationofitspeople.Ideally,theywouldprefertoidentifyanarea
wheretheKiribatipeoplecouldrelocateasawhole.Butsincethisseemstobeanunlikelyscenario,
theplanisinsteadtoscatterthepeopleofabout100,000individualsthroughoutthenationsofthe
world(Risse2009:281).
Oftentimesenvironmentalmigrantswillrelocatewithintheirowncountry.Thiscanbedoneeither
onanindividualbasisorasagroup.Sometimesrelocationwillnecessarilybetoanothercountry,as
isthecasewhenwholestatesdisappear.Onveryrareinstancesawholenationwillhavethe
possibilitytorelocateandrecreateitselfonnewterritory.Afewverywealthystatesmighthavethis
opportunityiftheymanagetostrikedealswithsomeotherstatestobuyterritorytowhichtheycan
relocatetheirwholepopulations.Morelikelyhowever,apeopleforcedtoleavetheirhomelandfor
environmentalreasonswillfacethechoiceofeitherrelocatingtootherstatesonanindividualbasis,
orasagroupwithoutthepossibilityofrecreatingthemselvesasanation.Thequestionnowis
whetherthegroupbasedsolutionsaretobepreferred,orwhetheritnormativelyspeakingmakesno
differenceifwerelocatepeopleonanindividualoronagroupbasis.
Evenifweacknowledgetheimpracticalityofrelocatingasmanyas100,000individualsasawhole,
intuitivelythereseemstobesomethingoddaboutthesuggestionthatthereisnomoraldifference
betweenthetwoalternativesofeitherscatteringthepeopleofanationlikeKiribatithroughoutthe
world,orrelocatingthemasacollective.ButRisse’’saccountprovidesnowayofexplainingthis
intuitiveunease.Therighttorelocationisderivedfromeachindividual’’sentitlementasacoͲowner
oftheearthtoanequalopportunitytosatisfybasicneedstotheextentthatthisturnsoncollectively
ownedresources.Thisdoesnotseemtoleaveanyspaceforthinkingoftherighttorelocationasa
groupbasedentitlement.
3
Tobesure,RissediscusseswhetherhisapproachsupportstheKiribatigovernment’’swishfor
relocatingtheirpeople,ormostofthem,asawholetothesamelocation.Hestatesthatthis
questioncannotbeansweredintheabsenceofempiricalinvestigationsrevealingwhetherthereare
countriesthatareunderͲusingthespacestheyoccupy.IftherearecountriesunderͲusingtheirshare
oftheearthrelativetoothercountriestosuchanextentthatthewholeormostofthepopulationof
Kiribati,orsomeotherthreatenednation,couldbeadmittedwithoutcreatinganoverͲusesituation,
thentroublednationscouldindeedmakeclaimsvisͲàͲvisunderͲusingcountriestobeadmittedas
groups(Risse2009:294).Orso,atleastRisseclaims.Butitisdifficulttoseehowconsiderationsof
collectiveownershipcouldbasesuchclaimswithoutaddingsomethingtotheargument.Collective
ownershipoftheearthestablishesindividualentitlements.ButRissedoesnotexplainhowtomove
fromtheseindividualentitlementstoacollectiveaccountoftherighttorelocation.
ExternalResourcesandCulturalRights
OnewayofaddingtoRisse’’sargumentinordertocreateacollectiveaccountoftherightto
relocationistohighlighthowtherealizationofculturalrightssometimesrequiresexternalresources.
Wecannote,first,thatthederivationfromindividualentitlementsbasedoncollectiveownershipto
arighttorelocationgoesthroughastepwhereitisimaginedthatacertainphysicalenvironmenthas
beensodamagedthattheonlywayofrespectingcoͲownershiprightsistohelppeoplerelocateto
newterritory.Here,Rissefocusesexclusivelyonthelossofexternalresourcesnecessaryfor
satisfyingpeoples’’basicneeds.HisideaisthatifasystemofstatesistobeacceptabletoallcoͲ
ownersoftheearth,stateshavetoacceptcertainconditions,oneofwhichisthattheymustprovide
supportforindividualswhofindthemselvesinasituationwherealackofexternalresourcesmakesit
impossibletogoonlivingintheirnativelocation.
Butpeopleuseexternalresourcesforotherthingsthanforfood,shelterandindividualnecessitiesof
thatsort.Byusingexternalresourcesincertainwayspeoplealsoendowtheirnationalterritorywith
symbolicsignificance.DavidMillerpointsoutthatlivingonandshapingapieceoflanddoesnotonly
meanincreasingitsvalueinaneconomicsense,italsomeans““endowingitwithmeaningbyvirtueof
significanteventsthathaveoccurredthere,monumentsthathavebeenbuilt,poems,novelsand
paintingsthatcaptureparticularplacesortypesoflandscape””(Miller2007:218).Somewaysof
utilizingexternalresourcestransformtheminwaysthatareofimportancebecauseitgivesthe
territoryasymbolicnaturewhichbecomespartofapeople’’shistoryandculture.Thelossofexternal
resourcesduetoenvironmentaldegradationdeprivespeoplenotonlyofresourcesneededfor
maintainingalifeat,atleast,thelevelofbasicͲneedssatisfaction.Italsodeprivesthemofresources
neededtosustainacultureandcreateacommonhistory,atleastinsofarasthisisdependenton
endowingaterritorywithsymbolicsignificance.
Itcanbearguedthen,thatforeachcoͲowneroftheearthtoacceptanarrangementwithstatesthat
claimexclusivecontroloverterritories,thereneedtobeconditionsinplacethatrequirestatesto
supportnotonlyindividualswhofindthemselvesinperilintheneedsbasedsense,butalsoto
supportgroupsofpeoplewhofacetheriskoflosingexternalresourcestotheextentthattheywill
notbeabletosustainpartoftheircommonculture.Indeed,asKymlicka(1989:175)hasargued
culturalmembershipdeeplyaffectsourimpressionofpersonalidentityandcapacity.Andfurther,
culturalheritage,thesenseofbelongingtoaculturalstructureandhistory,isofsignificancefor
4
individuals’’emotionalsecurity,personalstrength,andevensenseofagency.Ifwebelievethat
culturalbelongingisofsuchgreatimportancetoindividuals,itwouldputthesignificanceofexternal
resourcesforsatisfyingbasicneedsonaparwiththesignificanceofexternalresourcesforupholding
aculturalheritage.ForusascoͲownersoftheearthtoacceptastatesystem,wewouldrequire
conditionsonsuchasystemthatprotectusfromthelossofexternalresourcesforbothkindsof
purpose.Andifthekindofprotectionpeopleisowedinsomeextremecircumstancesrequiresa
supporttorelocate,thentheremightindeedbesucharighttorelocationforindividualsaswellas
forgroupsinsofarasgroupbasedrelocationisfeasibleandneededtoprovideopportunitiesfora
peoples’’continuedculturalexistence.
Ifthisculturalrightsbasedaccountisinterpretedasarightforenvironmentalrefugeestobegiven
sovereigncontroloveranewpieceofterritory,thereisaseriousproblemwithit.Itwouldfallpreyto
theobjectionthatevenifculturalbelongingisoffundamentalimportancetotheindividual,itisnot
obviousthatitispreciselytheculturethatanindividualcurrentlybelongstothatneedstobe
protected.Culturalbelongingisimportant,butwhymustitbethecultureanindividualbelongstoat
acertainmomentintimethatmustbeupheldratherthansomeotherculture?Wedonotneedto
getcynicalandclaimthatenvironmentalrefugeescouldjustwillinglyshifttothemajoritycultureof
thereceivingcountry.Culturedoesnotworkthatway.Butneitherareculturesstaticentities.Rather
theyareconstantlyevolvingovertime.Andinthesortofcasewearediscussinghere,cultural
changeisverylikely.Ifweacknowledgethatthereisanexternalaspecttoculturewhichis
dependentonexternalresources,thenitisverylikelythatwewillseechangestoaculturewhenever
thekindsofexternalresourcesitsmembershaveaccesstoalsochangesradically.Thiswill
unavoidablyhappenwhenapeopleisrelocatedtocompletelynewterritory.Ifculturalchangeis
likelytohappen,wemustaskwhythiswayof““protecting””aculture,i.e.torelocateapeopleand
giveitsovereigncontrolovernewterritory,isbetterthananyotherway.Thereisawidearrayof
multiculturalpolicieswiththepurposeofprotectingtheculturalidentityofminorities.Somework
betterthanothers.Theyarealllikelytocausechangesintheculturesofenvironmentalrefugees,but
soistheradicalsolutiontogivethemsovereigncontrolovernewterritory.Theculturalrights
accountgivesusnoreasontopreferoneovertheother.Inthefollowingsection,Iwillsuggestthat
selfͲdeterminationgivesusareasontopreferthemulticulturalisticsolution.
SelfͲDeterminationandtheLockeanProviso
Onewayofsolvingtheproblemistointroduceacollectiveentitlementbasedontherightto
collectiveselfͲdetermination.CaraNine(2010)hasrecentlydefendedsuchanaccountoftherights
ofwhatshecalls““ecologicalrefugees””.HeraccountisstructurallyquitesimilartoRisse’’s,witha
provisoor““rightofnecessity””doingtheimportantnormativework.Ninearguesthatthesystemof
territorialstates,sinceitisasystemofexclusiverightsoverland,issubjecttotheconditionsofa
Lockeanprovisomechanism.ButforNine,itisnotthethreattoanindividual‘‘sopportunitytosatisfy
basicneedsthattriggersarighttorelocation.Insteaditisthethreattoapeoples’’opportunityto
remainselfͲdeterminingthattriggersarighttobegivensovereigncontroloveranewpieceof
territory.
ThepointofaLockeanprovisoNineargues,istoensurethattheexerciseofanexclusiverightover
goodsdoesnotunderminetheveryvaluesthatjustifytheright(orthesystemofrightsofwhichitis
5
apart).Initsoriginalversion,theLockeanprovisoisalimitonpropertyrights.Propertyrightsarenot
inherentlyjustified.Instead,thesystemofpropertyrightsisjustifiedbecauseitprotectssomeother
basicvalue(orvalues).ForLocke,itwasitsultimatebenefittohumankindthatjustifiedthesystemof
privatepropertyrights.Thepointoftheprovisoistoprotectthepreservationofhumankindin
situationswherethesystemofprivatepropertyrightsthreatensthisfoundationalvalue.Insuch
situations,epitomizedbyinstancesofseverescarcity,thesystemofrightsshouldbechangedsothat
itnolongerunderminesthefoundationalvalues.
NineadaptsthisunderstandingoftheLockeanprovisototerritorialrights.Forpropertyrights,the
foundationalvalueforLockewasthe““preservationofhumankind””.Thefirststepinadaptingthe
provisototerritorialrightsistoidentifythefoundationalvalue(orvalue)territorialrightsaremeant
toprotect.Here,Ninearguesthatthefoundationalmoralmandateforterritorialrightsis““the
establishmentofjusticethroughthepreservationofselfͲdetermininggroups.””Inordertoreachthis
conclusionNinefirstclaimsthatthecentralfunctionofaterritorialright,andwhatseparatesitfrom
simplepropertyrightstoexternalresources,istogivetherightͲholderthepowertoestablishjustice
withinaparticulargeographicregion.Aterritorialrightisarightofpoliticalauthority;itisarightto
claimthemoralandpoliticalauthoritytoestablishjustice,i.e.toestablishadeterminatejurisdiction,
withinaparticulargeographicregion.Ajurisdictionisalegaldomainwhereacertainsetoflegalrules
appliesandwhereacertainagencyoragencieshaveauthoritytomake,adjudicate,andenforce
thoserules.Theholderofterritorialrightis““anindependentandautonomouspowerwithinits
territory””(Nine2010:4).
Ajustificationforterritorialrightsmustthereforebe““ajustificationforasystemofrightstoland
heldbygroupsthatprotectsgroupautonomyinestablishingjusticewithinageographicalregion.””
Territorialrightsaremeanttoestablishapracticalfoundationuponwhichagroupcanexerciseits
rightofselfͲdetermination.TherightofselfͲdeterminationisunderstoodbyNineastherightofselfͲ
government:
AgroupisselfͲgoverningifithastheindependentanddeterminatepoliticalcontroloversome
importantaspectsofitsmembers’’commonlife.SelfͲdeterminationrequiresbothautonomy
andindependence.TheselfͲdetermininggroupisautonomous——ithastheabilitytogovern
itselfbyadjudicating,legislating,andenforcinglawsonitsown,anditisindependent——ithas
adomainofpoliticalcontrolindependentofhigherorforeignpoliticalunitstowhichthe
group’’sselfͲmadelawsaresubjecttobeingoverriddenorrevoked(Nine2010:4).
WecanbroadlydefinethekindsofgroupswhichcanlegitimatelyclaimarighttoselfͲdetermination
as““peoples””.Apeoplemusthavesomesenseofinternalidentitythatis““uniquelyadvancedbythe
selfͲdeterminingpowersofthegroup””.Thisidentitydoesnothavetobeestablishedbynationalistor
culturalhomogeneity.AsNinepointsouttherearemanysenseswithwhichwecouldexplainthe
uniquenessofagroupthatisadvancedbytheirselfͲdeterminingstatus;forinstancethroughthe
conceptsofpublicreasonofdemocraticassociation.
Territorialrightsarejustifiedthen““becausetheyprotectandpromotetheselfͲdeterminationof
peoplesandthepeople’’scapacitiestoestablishjusticethroughtheirterritorialrights.””Ifapeopleis
tobeselfͲdetermining,itmustruleitself;andinorderforittoruleitselfitmusthavethemoraland
politicalauthoritytoestablishjusticeforitsmembers.ThismeansthatinordertobeselfͲ
determining,agroupwhichisalegitimateholderofarighttoselfͲdeterminationmusthave
6
sovereigntyovertheterritorywhereitsmembers(usually)live.Withoutterritorialrights,aselfͲ
determininggroupmayceasetoexistquaselfͲdetermininggroup(Nine2010:5).
Withthisunderstandingofterritorialrightsinplace,wecanapplytheLockeanprovisoinorderto
understandhowrestrictionsonholdingsofterritorymightwork.Ifterritorialrightsarejustifiedby
theirprotectionofselfͲdetermininggroups,thentheprovisowillbetriggeredincircumstanceswhen
theselfͲdeterminationofagroupisthreatenedbecauseoftheterritorialdispositionsofothergroups
(Nine2010:5).Presumably,thisisthecasewhenanentireorverylargepartofapeopleloosetheir
homelandbecauseofecologicaldisaster.Whenthishappens,the““ecologicalrefugeestate””isunder
athreattolooseitsstatusasaselfͲdeterminingentity.WhentheterritoryofaselfͲdetermining
groupisdestroyed,itsselfͲdeterminationisthreatenedwithextinctionbecauseofthegroup’’slackof
accesstotheterritoriesofotherstates.Insuchcircumstancestheprovisorequiresthatstateswith
territorialrightsoverviablelands““haveanobligationtoallowreasonableaccesstotheirterritoryto
theecologicalrefugeestates.””Theexistingterritorialrightsofstatesshouldchange,saystheproviso,
becauseofthechangeincircumstances;territorialentitlementsmustchangeinordertoallowthe
ecologicalrefugeestatesreasonableaccesstosometerritorysomewhere(Nine2010:8).
NinearguesthattheconditionstriggeringtheLockeanprovisoarenotresolvedbysimplyletting
membersofecologicalrefugeestatesimmigratetosomeotherstate.Allowingenvironmental
refugeestoimmigratewillnotsatisfythecriterianecessaryforthegrouptowhichtheybelongtobe
selfͲdetermining.InordertobeselfͲdetermining,““agroupmayhavetohaveterritorialrights——to
begrantedtheauthoritytoestablishjusticewithinacertainregion.Inthesecases,theconditions
triggeringtheLockeanprovisoarenotresolveduntilthethreatenedgroupisgrantedterritorialrights
oversometerritory””(Nine2010:8).
AproblemwithNine’’saccountisthatitdoesnotconsiderpotentialconflictsbetweentherightsof
selfͲdeterminationbetweendifferentpreviously(legitimately)selfͲdetermininggroups.Tobesure,
Ninementionshowthefactthatnumerousecologicalrefugeestatesaswellasothergroupshave
legitimateclaimstoterritorialrightspresentssomethingofaproblemsincecurrentlythereisno
unoccupied,viablelandonwhichtheycouldallrecreatethemselvesasselfͲdeterminingpeoples.
Hence,““anyclaimthatanecologicalrefugeestatemighthavetoaterritoryasaresultoftheLockean
provisowillcompetewithanothergroup’’srighttoselfͲdetermination””(Nine2010:14).Weneedto
notehere,thattheconflictbetweendifferentgroups’’rightstoselfͲdeterminationdoesnotonly
concern““competing””statelessgroups.Therewillalmostalwaysbeaconflictbetweenclaimsto
territorybyanecologicalrefugeestateandtherighttoselfͲdeterminationbelongingtothepeopleof
thereceivingstate.Ifanecologicalrefugeestateistoestablishsovereigntyoverterritorypreviously
ownedbyanotherlegitimatelyselfͲdeterminingpeople,thiswillrestricttheautonomyofthelatter
group.Presumably,theirliveswillbemorerestrictedastheywillnolongerbeabletoemigrateto,
travel,orholdajobintherelinquishedregion.Moreimportantly,theywillnolonger““haveavoicein
determiningtheregion’’seconomicorenvironmentaloreducationalorlanguagepolitics,someof
whichmayaffecttheirownfate””(Philpott1995:362).Savingtheperhapsunlikelyeventthata
receivingstatewillwillinglygiveupaviablepieceofitsterritorythroughitsusualmechanismsof
legitimatedecisionmaking,whatwewillhavethenisanunavoidableconflictbetweenclaimsto
territorybyonegroup,andtherighttoselfͲdeterminationbyanother.
7
WeneedtorememberthatwhatisoffsetbytheprovisoisnottherighttoselfͲdetermination,but
territorialrights.SelfͲdeterminationisoffoundationalvalue,andcannotbecancelledbytheproviso
sincetheprovisoisinplaceinordertoprotectselfͲdetermination.Theproblemisthatradical
changestothesystemofterritorialrightswillinevitablyaffecttheselfͲdeterminationofonegroupor
another.Itisaradicalchangeinterritory,i.e.ecologicaldisaster,whichcreatesasituationwherethe
selfͲdeterminationofanecologicalrefugeestateisthreatened.Butthesameistrueabouttheradical
changeofterritorycausedbyrelinquishingterritoryfromoneselfͲdeterminingpeopletoanother.To
besure,inthefirstcasethethreatisthatofextinctionofagroup’’sstatusasaselfͲdetermining
entity.Intheothercase,thereisnorealthreatofextinctiontotheselfͲdeterminationofthe
receivingstate,butmerelyarestrictionontheextentofitsselfͲdetermination.Butstill,thereisa
conflictherethatneedstoberesolved.Anditisnotobviousthatthesolutionliesinaradical
restructuringofterritorialrights.
TherearewaysoutofthisdilemmaIbelieve.Thekeyistoacknowledgethatthecreationofanew
sovereigninaterritoryisbutonewayofinstitutionalizingagroups’’righttoselfdetermination.There
areotherwaysofrealizingsucharightwhichdonotcreatesuchaseriousconflictbetweentherights
ofselfͲdeterminationofdifferentgroups.LocalselfͲgovernmentisonewayofinstitutionalizingselfͲ
determinationwhichdoesnotincludecompletesovereigncontrol.Ninementionsherselfhowthe
meaningof““sovereignty””isdeveloping.Thereisforinstancetalkof““limitedsovereignty””asinthe
sovereigntyofNativeAmericannationswithinthesovereignUnitedStates(Nine2010:14).SelfͲ
determinationcomesindegreesandcanbeinstitutionalizedindifferentways.Ifthisiscorrectwe
willhavetheoptiontocreatearrangementsoflimitedformsofselfͲdeterminationforpreviously
selfͲdetermininggroupsnowlivingontheterritoryofanotherstate.Theremightevenbesome
formsofmulticulturalpoliciesthatallowculturalselfͲdeterminationtoanextentthatissufficientto
resolvetheconditionsthattriggertheLockeanprovisointhecaseofenvironmentalrefugees.Ifso,
immigrationpairedwithculturalrightswouldbeenoughtosatisfytherequirementsoftheproviso.
Whatweneedisacloseexaminationofdifferent,perhapsinnovativewaysofinstitutionalizingrights
ofselfͲdeterminationwhichwouldnotcreatesuchdeepconflictsbetweentheselfͲdeterminationof
differentgroupsaswouldNine’’sradicalproposal.
Literature
Barnett,Jon(2003).‘‘SecurityandClimateChange’’,GlobalEnvironmentalChange13(1):7Ͳ17.
Bell,DerekR.(2004).‘‘EnvironmentalRefugees:WhatRights?WhichDuties?’’,ResPublica10(2):135Ͳ
152.
Brown,Oli(2007)‘‘ClimateChangeandForcedMigration:Observations,Projectionsand
Implications’’,HumanDevelopmentReport2007/2008,OccasionalPaper2007/17,UNDP.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007Ͳ2008/papers/brown_oli.pdf.
McFerran,Ann(2007).‘‘Bangladesh:ANationinFearofDrowning,’’TheIndependent,2007Ͳ04Ͳ18.
Availableathttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climateͲchange/bangladeshaͲnationͲinͲ
fearͲofͲdrowningͲ445139.html.
8
Myers,Norman(2002).‘‘EnvironmentalRefugees:AGrowingPhenomenonofthe21stCentury’’,
PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB357(1420):609Ͳ613.
Myers,Norman(2005).‘‘EnvironmentalRefugees:AnEmergentSecurityIssue’’,OSCE,
http://www.osce.org/documents/eea/2005/05/14488_en.pdf.
Nine,Cara(2010).‘‘EcologicalRefugees,StatesBorders,andtheLockeanProviso’’.Forthcomingin
JournalofAppliedPhilosophy,doi:10.1111/j.1468Ͳ5930.2010.00498.x.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)(2007).ClimateChange2007:ThePhysical
ScienceBasis(CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge).
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)(2008).ClimateChange2007:Impacts,
AdaptationandVulnerability(CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge).
Kymlicka,Will(1989).Liberalism,CommunityandCulture(OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford).
Miller,David(2007).NationalResponsibilityandGlobalJustice(OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford).
Philpott,Daniel(1995).‘‘InDefenceofSelfͲDetermination’’,Ethics105(2):352Ͳ385.
Risse,Mathias(2009).‘‘TheRighttoRelocation:DisappearingIslandNationsandCommonOwnership
oftheEarth’’,EthicsandinternationalAffairs23(3):281Ͳ300.
Suhrke,Astri(1994).‘‘EnvironmentalDegradationandPopulationFlows’’,JournalofInternational
Affairs47(2):473Ͳ496.
Stern,Nicholas(2006).TheEconomicsofClimateChange.TheSternReview(CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge).
9