HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

However, at the end of the judgment, the Court stated that rising sea levels in the Pacific Ocean negatively impacted Kiribati’s homes, crops, coconut palms, and freshwater supply. When elevated, saltwater occasionally seeps into coastal properties due to high tides and tides. Specific crops and coconut palms have died due to salt water. Well-drawn drinking water has been contaminated by it. However, the Tribunal was correct in concluding that, should they be forced to return to Kiribati, Mr. Teitiota and his family would have sufficient food and water supplies, and based on the facts presented, the Tribunal was qualified to determine that Mr. Teitiota and his family could “resume their prior subsistence life with dignity” upon their return to Kiribati. 48 After carefully considering the questions and the Tribunal’s reasoning, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to the High Court. 49 Nevertheless, it is essential to mention the Court’s final comments: “No one should read this judgment as downplaying the importance of climate change. It is a major and growing concern for the international community. This judgment makes the point that climate change and its effect on countries like Kiribati is not appropriately addressed under the Refugee Convention”. 50 Judge J. Priestly presented another self-aware comment on the topic in the leave to appeal application decision, where he observed: “The appellant raised an argument that the international community itself was tantamount to the “persecutor” for the Refugee Convention. This completely reverses the traditional refugee paradigm. Traditionally, a refugee is fleeing his government or a non-state actor from whom the government is unwilling or unable to protect him. Thus, the claimant is seeking refuge within the very countries that are allegedly “persecuting” him.” 51 3.3 Supreme Court’s Decision 52 Mr. Teitiota sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. His application was based on the same six questions he submitted in his previous leave to appeal. Additionally, his lawyer identified the critical issue: “Whether New Zealand’s refugee law extends protection to a person who faces environmental displacement and the operation of several International Conventions, most importantly relating to the care of his three children under the age of six born in NZ”. 53

48 Ibid., para. [37]. 49 Ibid., para. [42]. 50 Ibid., para. [41]. 51 Court of Appeal of New Zealand, para. [55].

52 Supreme Court of New Zealand. Ioane Teitiota v. the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZSC 107 [online]. New Zealand, 20 July 2015 [cit. 2024-06-15]. Available at: https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2015/20150720_2015 NZSC-107_judgment.pdf. 53 Ibid., para. [11].

83