Climate Relocation and the Future of State Sovereignty
By Lupita De Smet | 23rd of December | 3 min
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shakes hands with Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Kausea Natano after signing the “Falepili Union” on 10 November, 2023 (AlboMP/X)
As the impacts of climate change manifest themselves globally– from extreme flooding to deadly heatwaves, cyclones and erosion– climate relocation is no longer a theoretical concept. The United Nations warns that over 140 million people may require internal relocation by 2050, uncovering rapidly emerging challenges to both international law and state sovereignty. Whilst this presents a challenge for government response to climate change driven displacement, it also sheds light on the critical and urgent need for a global framework for climate rights and accountability. As the world enters this new era of climate driven relocations, is international law and global governance prepared, or will this instill a quiet human rights crisis?
In 2026, Australia is set to receive the world’s first officially recognised climate refugees. This is the result of the Falepili Union treaty signed in 2023 between Australia and Tuvalu, a small country in the Pacific Ocean, which outlines that up to 280 Tuvaluans can permanently migrate to Australia each year as a result of the rising sea-levels. However, while this appears to offer an effective solution for securing citizens’ safety overseas, it carries significant repercussions for the evolving concept of state sovereignty that goes beyond the individual movement of people.
Under international law, state sovereignty requires a permanent population on clearly defined territory. However, this concept becomes scrutinised in the context of territorial losses as a result of climate change. For instance, the Falepili Union treaty legally recognises Tuvalu’s continued statehood and sovereignty even in the physical loss of its territory due to rising seas. This concept was further solidified in June when the UN International Law Commission declared that states should retain statehood even if their territory disappears under water. This new concept of separating territory from statehood has various implications, such as on the retention of fishing zones. In the case of Tuvalu, it has negotiated to retain both its UN vote and its exclusive economic zone of a vast tuna-rich patch of ocean, even if it loses its physical territory to rising seas. This creates tension with other fishing states, which may contest the continued validity of Tuvalu’s maritime entitlements and argue that the disappearance of its territory should remove those fishing rights.
Furthermore, other issues may arise such as the trade-offs governments face between securing their citizens’ safety overseas and the risk of losing workforce in institutions as well as cultural heritage. As an increasing number of Tuvaluans migrate abroad, the government faces widening civil-service gaps within its already limited workforce. This creates tensions between the Tuvaluans who want to increase the migration quota, and the government, who wants the cap of 280 to prevent further loss of talent. In addition, relocation can weaken the legal recognition of land rights, particularly for Indigenous communities, leading to the loss of ancestral land, culture, and language— losses that cannot be compensated by economic measures.
On a global level, climate migration is still a very novel concept, and the term ‘climate refugee’ has no standing in international law. This creates a legal vacuum in which persons displaced by climate-related disruptions have no guaranteed protection across borders, nor is there a global institution mandated to oversee their relocation or compensation. This lack of a cohesive relocation framework across countries or treaties has various political implications, such as determining whether the community or the state holds authority to decide when relocation should occur. Lack of consensus on such aspects may create fragmentation within communities that may cause lasting negative consequences. Accordingly, establishing rights-based relocation guidelines and legally binding commitments to protect climate-displaced persons is crucial to ensure compliance and reduce the risk of human rights violations.
In conclusion, the world is watching how international law and global governance will respond to the growing impacts of climate change on both individual lives and state sovereignty. As evident in the case of Tuvalu, climate-driven relocation challenges long-standing legal doctrines. At the same time, there are the human dimensions that underscore the significant social costs of relocation. Overall, the challenge will be to uphold this balance, protecting displaced people while also respecting the sovereignty of nations confronted by climate-related threats.
Lupita De Smet is a second year Bachelor student at Bocconi University, studying International Government
