HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

The Supreme Court briefly summarised the factual background and previous decisions and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Nevertheless, it emphasized that its decision did not mean that environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other natural disasters could never create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction. 54 3.4 Key Findings from the Teitiota Case In Teitiota’s case, “serious harm” was construed by strict legal criteria, which required a significant and immediate risk to life or protection from cruel treatment. Although Kiribati is negatively impacted by climate change, the courts in New Zealand concluded that the government’s proactive mitigation measures, such as erecting seawalls and guaranteeing drinkable water, prevented the occurrence of an immediate and grave threat. This highlights the shortcomings of the current refugee protections for displacement brought on by climate change, as the evidence is needed to satisfy the high bar for substantial harm as required by international agreements. 4. UNHRC’s Stance on Climate Migration and the Principle of Non-Refoulement 55 Mr. Teitiota lodged a complaint against New Zealand with the UNHRC after unsuccessful attempts to appeal the decision, based on which he was deported to Kiribati. He claimed that by returning him to Kiribati, his right to life under Article 6 of the ICCPR was violated. He argued that the sea level rise in Kiribati has led to a shortage of liveable space, which has sparked violent land disputes that jeopardized the author’s life and caused environmental degradation, including contaminated freshwater from saltwater. 56 Firstly, the UNHRC noted that the Tribunal and the courts acknowledged that the consequences of climate change or other natural disasters could offer a foundation for protection. 57 It also recognized the right to life as a right for individuals to enjoy a life with dignity and to be free from acts or omissions that would cause their unnatural or premature death. 58 It continued by stating that the right to life can be violated even in the absence of death when this right encompasses conditions and reasonably foreseeable threats that have the potential to cause death. 59 However, according to the UNHRC’s decision, the evidence “did not establish that he faced 54 Ibid., para. [13]. 55 UN Human Rights Committee. Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2728/2016 [online]. Geneva, 24 October 2019 [cit. 2024 06-15]. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3979204?ln=en&v=pdf. 56 Ibid., para. 3. 57 Ibid., para. 9.6. 58 See a reference to the general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, para. 3. 59 United Nations Human Rights Committee, para. 9.4.

84