Sustainability and National Security

ways to refugees, there are marked differences, one of
which would be the fact climate change may preclude
a return to the place of origin, especially if exigent
statelessness forces the migration. Unarguably, the
rights of ecomigrants and the obligations of receiving
states must be balanced; an unsustainable solution has
no chance of gaining acceptance and every chance to
fail even if accepted.
The prevailing view of climate change and ecomi-
gration is that the risks, threats, and vulnerabilities as-
sociated with each are modest, and that ecomigration
is and will be primarily a temporary, internal phe-
nomenon associated primarily with extreme weather
events and other short-lived conditions. While it is no-
toriously difficult to make predictions 40, 50, or more
years out, careful attention must be paid to climate
change’s long-term trends. The time it takes to and
the complexity associated with changing international
law, policy, and attitudes are appreciable. Work on a
sustainable solution must begin now, and states, em-
bracing their responsibility to protect, must choose the
solution. Survival—through mechanisms of climate
change adaptation—is a human right to which state
sovereignty and national security must be partly sub-
ordinated but not abandoned.
One dialog that must be expanded is that between
security strategists and migration advocates, each
of whose work in the cross-cutting arena of climate
change must inform the others. Whereas environmen-
talists and sustainable development proponents have
already begun to consider the security implications of
climate change in depth, the efforts of those interested
in migration should be encouraged. Ecomigration,
more than any other form of displacement, is shaping
up to be a leading issue of the 21st and 22nd centuries.