numbers of migrants without difficulty. A number
of complex legal issues would still require resolution,
however. As a general rule, a population and gov-
ernment that move to another state would be entirely
dependent on the status the receiving state accords
(United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
2009a). Would the migrating population and govern-
ment retain some measure of sovereignty as a stateless
state (viz., without territory)? Would the migrating
state form a union with the host state, or would the
host state cede territory? And what status would the
migrants have, single or dual nationality?
The International Organization for Migration
(IOM) proposes that environmentally dispossessed
persons, both internally displaced persons and cross-
border migrants, be labeled “environmental migrants”
(The International Organization for Migration 2011c).
IOM, among others, asserts that environmentally dis-
possessed persons should not be labeled refugees be-
cause they do not meet the requirements of the Refu-
gee Convention (Morton et al. 2008). While true, it
may be that refugee status, due to its association with
forced relocation, is conceptually apt, especially if
statelessness also occurs. One approach would be to
expand the definition of refugee to include environ-
mentally dispossessed persons.
IOM asserts that “[a]ll persons moving for environ-
mental reasons are protected by human rights law”
(The International Organization for Migration 2011c).
This is also true, although the assertion is more a state-
ment of aspiration than legal fact. Environmentally
dispossessed persons are entitled to a variety of legal
protections when they reach a new country, but a
right to permanent residence is not among them, and
admission to the new country may be denied without
sharon
(sharon)
#1