Kavita Naidu: “As the World Warms, Tensions Fueled by Human Rights Violations and Injustices Continue to Escalate”

Waseem Ahmad Siddiqui: In the 1951 Geneva Convention, we see that the concept of a refugee was established as a legal term under international law. The Convention defines who qualifies as a refugee and what rights and protections they are entitled to.

This legal concept was originally conceived to include people forced to flee war or conflict, or those subjected to various forms of political, religious, or other persecution.

However, today, refugees are not limited to people forced to leave their homes due to war or conflict. To give one of the most significant examples, people who have been forced to leave their homes due to the climate crisis do not fall under the refugee definition established by the Geneva Convention.

The 1951 Geneva Convention was designed primarily to protect European refugees in the aftermath of World War II. Although the Convention originally contained geographical and temporal limitations, these were largely removed by the 1967 Protocol. Nevertheless, significant gaps remain in its application, particularly regarding people displaced by the climate crisis.

We are joined by Kavita Naidu, a Fijian human rights lawyer who works at the intersection of the climate crisis, militarization, the securitization of climate change, and Indigenous rights. She is also a leading voice in the feminist and Free Palestine movements in the Pacific.

Kavita, thank you for joining us. Could you please begin by addressing this significant gap in the 1951 Geneva Convention, which does not explicitly include people displaced by the climate crisis?

Kavita Naidu: Thank you, Waseem, and thank you for having me on the show this morning.

I think, for the audience, we have to recognize the limitations of international law, given the way it has developed over a significant number of years, almost eight decades now.

First and foremost, we have to recognize that climate change only became part of international law relatively recently. Initially, the basis for addressing these issues was international environmental law, and there are quite a few international environmental laws. But climate change and the establishment of the UNFCCC really began to take shape around three decades ago. We are now at COP31, so approximately 31 years ago.

At the time when the Geneva Conventions and international refugee law were developed, drafted, and ratified, climate change, much less environmental issues, did not feature prominently.

And so we must understand that international law is organic. It evolves and develops over time as we better understand the intersection of different forms of oppression and the injustices that have emerged from them.

At that time, it was the post-war period. It was about social justice issues, rebuilding, and recognizing refugees who were predominantly coming from war-torn areas in different parts of the world. There were enormous levels of migration, much of it legal.

W.A.S.: Yeah.

K.N.: Now we live in an era where borders are fortified and militarized to keep people out. And there are many reasons why people are being displaced, both internally and across borders.

The unfortunate reality is that international law has not caught up with the world we currently live in. In fact, despite the vast scope of international law, its limitations include a lack of coherence and integration across different legal frameworks.

The International Court of Justice actually put this quite beautifully in its most recent advisory opinion on climate justice. We cannot limit the human rights impacts of climate change solely to international climate law and its governance framework, the UNFCCC. We have to rely on other areas of international law, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, the international law of the sea, and many others, because there is such a wide range of legal frameworks available.

Similarly, I think we have to ask: How do we offer the protections that states owe to every human being who is experiencing mass displacement, whose life is under threat, and who is on the front lines of these crises?

Even though we do not have a clear legal definition of climate refugees, how can the entire body of international law work together to provide the protections that are needed?

And so, we see many other forms of international convenings emerging from these multilateral spaces, whether through the Sustainable Development Goals, feminist spaces, Indigenous spaces, or international courts. There was also the Global Compact on Refugees at one point. I'm not sure where that stands now, but there is recognition that this displacement is already happening around the world.

And while the system is neither perfect nor ideal, it is the only international legal system we have. All states should abide by international law, the treaties they have ratified, and customary international law.

We have customary international law, and now we all recognize that genocide and torture are crimes. Every state recognizes this. But unfortunately, when it comes to refugees, we have not developed that same level of jurisprudence and understanding.

So the law does not necessarily always catch up with the realities of the world, but we still use it as best we can.

As a human rights lawyer, I recognize that it has taken 80 years, and we still do not have a convention that specifically protects the rights of those we might call climate refugees.

But we still have enough. We have enough legal frameworks for states to establish the infrastructure and mechanisms necessary to offer the protections they should be providing as duty-bearers responsible for protecting people's human rights.

W.A.S.: So, what would you say about this? Is there a legal pathway towards reparations, whether for the climate crisis or colonialism? Can we win reparations through the courts?

K.N.: I'm really excited that at this COP, there are so many panels, discussions, and sessions around the concept of reparations. And the fact that we now have loss and damage, not quite on the agenda, but there is an understanding, and a fund has been set up, which is probably the closest we are going to get to talking about reparations using the frameworks and laws that are currently available.

But again, I turn to the ICJ advisory opinion, because it recognizes that where an internationally wrongful act has been committed by a state, and in our case, we're talking about climate injustices, displacement is one of the impacts on frontline communities.

And so, if you look at the causal link between why displacement is happening and then work your way backwards to the roles and responsibilities of the state, then yes, we can establish that there is a clear injustice and a violation taking place.

Now, again, when I talked about whether the law has caught up with these realities, in some countries and regions, reparations are very much embedded in national legislation. And so, yes, we have case law on reparations.

When it comes to the jurisprudence around reparations, I know Africa and the Caribbean are at the forefront of this work, and the Pacific still has a way to go. But we're certainly there in terms of commitment and understanding.

Whether the law catches up or not, fundamentally, what all Global South communities, including marginalized communities living in the Global North, are asking for is finance to be able to confront and address loss and damage, mitigation, adaptation, resilience, and so forth.

Now, when we're talking about reparations, that concept is much broader than finance or money, because you cannot put a monetary value on the loss of culture, the loss of life, the loss of language, or even the loss of your livestock, for instance.

So non-economic loss and damage is one of those areas that comes close to covering what reparations should encompass.

I think my point on reparations, and I do believe that reparations are what those of us on the front lines of the worst climate impacts are owed, is that this is a historical debt owed to us.

Climate change is something that has entered the conversation fairly recently, but reparations have been owed to us for much longer, especially to someone like me, who is a descendant of an enslaved person. Reparations go so far back.

Reparations are fundamentally grounded in colonialism, imperialism, and the continuing exploitation, extraction, plunder, and commodification of Black people, Indigenous Peoples, people of color, and our resources.

It's the same slavery that is now happening through supply chains and the resources being supplied for the energy transition.

Back in the day, they used to come on ships and take our whales and sandalwood. Now they come on planes, make us sign trade agreements, and continue taking our land, our oceans, our forests, and so forth.

Reparations are what Global North governments absolutely run away from, which is why even the UNFCCC legal framework is completely Western-dominated. It is colonial. It is designed to protect the economic and national interests of developed countries.

And this is why it moves so slowly, and our victories are so few and far between.

We can't even talk about liability in our COP spaces when we're discussing loss and damage finance and so forth. We're not going to open that door because it would open up too many other issues. And those issues ultimately lead to reparations.

Because we have the right to go as far as demanding reparations for what we have experienced, not just historically, but also for the ongoing impacts of those historical injustices.

And those impacts are now compounded by the fact that this exploitation is not ending. Quite the opposite: extraction and plunder are even more extensive than they were back then.

And now there are more people on the planet, which is why, of course, mass displacement is such a significant issue. Where do people go to survive and live when they no longer have the resources they need?

Our identities, our livelihoods, and our social cohesion as communities are all at stake.

For the Pacific, we might have atoll island states that no longer exist, perhaps even within our lifetimes.

And so how do you ever compensate for that loss? What is owed to those people? Or are we once again going to become sacrifice zones for the continuation of hypercapitalism, which seems unending?

And so, for those of us from the Global South who take a decolonial approach, and I am a decolonial feminist, reparations are front and center in what we're demanding.

We're not simply holding the line and saying, "Give us finance and resources."

It is reparations that we are asking for.

W.A.S.: Yes, yes, yes. And I also want to ask you about a very recent report by the Norwegian Refugee Council.

It says that, to date, 84 million people worldwide have been displaced due to war, violence, and the climate emergency. And the UN says that the most affected countries have been Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar.

This report on internal displacement doesn't include two very important places in our time: Gaza and Ukraine.

The report doesn't include the 2.8 million people displaced in Gaza. But of course, these numbers are always underestimated.

Underestimated, exactly.

But let me just read what it says: 2.8 million internally displaced people within the Gaza Strip.

And the report also doesn't include the nearly eight million people who have fled Ukraine since the Russian invasion.

So what I want to ask you is, first, why do you think these two places, Gaza and Ukraine, have not been included?

And my second question concerns the intersectionality of climate change, forced displacement, and armed conflict.

To what extent does climate change act as a driver or multiplier of existing social, political, and economic tensions, potentially contributing to conflict and migration?

K.N.: So, in terms of why the Norwegian Refugee Council did not include Palestine or Ukraine in its research, I find it quite surprising, to be honest, because in the countries from which they have gathered data, there are active conflicts and genocide in some cases as well.

And all of these countries have experienced high levels of human-induced climate disasters and so forth. Of course, a number of these countries are also among the poorest nations in the world.

I actually don't even know what Norway's position is on the Russian invasion and the war in Ukraine, or on Palestine. So I probably wouldn't be able to answer that because I don't have enough information.

But generally, what I find in the Global North is that if Palestine is not being included, it is because Israel has something to do with it, right?

And they simply don't want to appear to antagonize Israel in any way. To me, it is almost always related to some kind of trade or economic agreement they have.

W.A.S.: No, but I have also seen reports over the past year, and I think this has happened repeatedly: Gaza has not been included. Of course, since October 7, I would say that both Gaza and Ukraine have been absent from these reports.

K.N.: Well, it is very strange, to be quite honest. I mean, one would assume that a lot of this research coming from the Global North would not include Palestine, again, for the reasons I've mentioned earlier.

But I'm very surprised about Ukraine because, to put it quite bluntly, these are white people killing white people. And usually, white people care about these things, but that doesn't seem to be happening here.

So, yeah. And on the question of climate change as a driver of...

W.A.S.: Armed conflict.

K.N.: Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, you know, this is not a new or fresh topic. It has been discussed for a very long time in our climate spaces, and perhaps for even longer in refugee and environmental spaces.

Now, why don't we have the information, knowledge, tools, infrastructure, and processes we need, even in multilateral spaces, to be able to make those connections?

My theory is that conflict, war, genocide, and everything involving the military-industrial complex have been granted legal impunity within multilateral processes. Even international law carves out what can and cannot be done with the military.

Then, of course, you have the Geneva Conventions, the law of armed conflict, international humanitarian law, and so forth. But what you see, especially in our time, is a flagrant disregard for international law.

And in my opinion, international law barely provides for accountability within the military-industrial complex. Whatever little we have is absolutely not enough.

And that is why we have seen global outrage that a genocide could be allowed to happen while we watch. And it's not just the genocide. Look at what's happening in Ukraine and in different parts of the world, including Yemen, Sudan, and so forth. There is so much happening.

This is the most conflict-ridden and volatile period of my lifetime, particularly over the last ten years. And it's only getting worse. Violence is only increasing.

The problem is that so many of our political, social, economic, and legal systems operate in complete isolation from one another. And so we lack coherence, as well as the research and knowledge needed to connect these issues.

We must connect everything in order to develop meaningful legal and policy responses.

I remember doing a webinar years ago, and somewhere in my research, I came across the idea that the Syrian war actually began because the country had experienced some of the worst droughts. And I could be fact-checked on this as well.

These droughts devastated livestock populations, perhaps as much as 90% of the livestock. And so there was a mass migration of rural people, mostly farmers, into the cities because the places where they lived had become uninhabitable. Their living conditions had become atrocious.

So they moved into cities, as people do, to look for work, rebuild their livelihoods, and so forth.

And, of course, that then contributed to further tensions. Even leaving aside populations moving across borders and trying to integrate into communities that are already struggling with limited access to food, water, shelter, and other necessities, you have more people arriving.

This is the reality of migration in the Global South. You're moving from one extremely vulnerable community, exposed to so many risks, into another community that is not much better off.

It may not be experiencing war, but when it comes to climate devastation, there are no borders that can control what droughts, famines, or food insecurity do, or what happens when your entire farmland is inundated with saltwater.

Look at what's happening in Bangladesh. This is the reality.

And why does this relate to war? You just have to bring it back to people, to humanity.

You are now in a position where you're fighting to find food, water, education, employment, space, safety, and security.

And then we have governments, including in the Global South, that are corrupt and violent, and that are actively reversing and weakening the human rights protections we have.

And this is not limited to any particular region. Just look at what's happening across the Global South.

We are living in extremely dangerous times. The far right, the rise of techno-fascism, the anti-rights agenda, and the erosion of women's rights are all part of this broader regression.

And all of this is happening in a warming world.

In a warming world, we are already feeling the heat of injustices and human rights violations. And then you add a cyclone, a storm, a bushfire, a flood, or a glacial collapse that unleashes torrents capable of completely wiping out generations of a community in minutes.

This is the world we live in.

And what are we doing? What are our governments doing?

Not only are they weakening environmental safeguards and human rights protections, but they are also putting enormous amounts of money into building up their militaries, securitizing their borders, investing in AI-powered military hardware, and developing electric supercars for the rich and elite.

But what is happening to ordinary people? What is happening to the masses?

I'm not talking about the upper-middle class or the wealthy, for whom so much of the energy transition seems to be designed. It's all about energy consumption for those who can afford it.

Because, really, are we actually going to redistribute energy to where it's needed?

And let's move beyond just the energy conversation, because I'm a human rights lawyer.

For me, the questions are: Do people have food? Do they have water?

And if they're trying to enter certain spaces, or if they're protesting against a mine, what happens to them?

Because we know what's happening to dissent and civic space all across the world. There are fewer and fewer of us, and those who remain are being imprisoned, assassinated, killed, and so forth.

So what we now have are corporations working hand in hand with corrupt governments to build up the military-industrial complex.

And that entire military-industrial complex is being fueled by fossil fuels.

So you've locked in the energy supply chain. Then you have laws that legitimize that energy supply chain and protect the military. We literally have laws that protect the military.

And then we have ongoing genocide and conflict.

And all of us who are human rights lawyers are in these spaces, looking to the United Nations for solutions.

Yet, at the same time, we fully recognize the current state of multilateralism in this world.

It's very dark.

W.A.S.: Kavita Naidu, a Fijian human rights lawyer, thank you so much.

K.N.: Thank you for having me Waseem. 

---

_{Who is Kavita Naidu? Kavita Naidu is a Fijian international human rights lawyer and feminist climate justice advocate. As one of the spokespersons for the Pasifika for Palestine movement, she works to ensure that Indigenous Peoples, Pacific communities, women, and countries of the Global South have a voice in climate policymaking.}

_{Having worked with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Naidu focuses on the intersections of the climate crisis with gender, human rights, colonialism, and economic inequality. She argues that the Palestinian struggle cannot be separated from the global climate justice movement.}