[ ]

Tag: CoastalErosion

Posted on

Daniel Billy et al. v Australia

Date: 22 September 2022

Court: United Nations Human Rights Committee

Citation: Views adopted by the Committee under Article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning Communication No. 3624/2019

Short summary 

The indigenous minority group of four low-lying islands in the Torres Strait region, one of the most vulnerable populations to climate change impacts, filed a petition against the Australian government alleging a violation of articles 2, 6, 17, 24 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) due to Australia’s failure to implement measures for mitigation and adaptation to climate change, threatening habitability on the islands and displacement of the Torres Strait Islanders. In finding a violation of articles 17 and 27, the Committee requires Australia to make full reparation to individuals, providing adequate compensation, engaging in meaningful consultation with affected communities for assessment and continue implementing strategies for the safe existence of the islands and their inhabitants.

Summary by: Irene Sacchetti

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

Though not legally binding, for the first time the Committee ascertains State’s responsibility for climate inaction leading to a violation of multiple rights, including cultural rights under the ICCPR.

Key facts 

The petitioners’ claims were based on Australia’s failure to implement adaptation strategies (e.g., infrastructure such as sea walls) and mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to combat adverse climate change impacts. They argued that sea level rise — already causing coastal erosion – flooding, and the destruction of marine ecosystems and resources all result in violations of Islanders’ rights to life and a healthy environment (article 6), home (article 17), practice cultural traditions on ancestral land (article 27) and intergenerational equity (article 24).

Citing the Teitiota decision, Australia responded that the petitioners “invoke a risk that has not yet materialized” and that “the State party is taking adaptation measures in the Torres Strait, thus rendering the harm invoked by the authors too remote to demonstrate a violation of the right to life.”

The Committee was asked to determine whether Australia violated the Covenant by failing to implement adaptation and/or mitigation measures to combat adverse climate change impacts within its territory resulting in harms to the authors’ rights.

Previous instances 

None: The petitioners’ rights under the ICCPR are neither protected by the Australia Constitution nor other domestic legislation – and the highest Court in Australia has ruled that the state have a duty of care to prevent environmental harm – so this was a case of first impression before the Committee.

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.

Date: 12 September 2012

Court: US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Citation: 696 F.3d 849

Short summary

The Village of Kivalina, a self-governing, federally recognized tribe of Inupiat Native Alaskans, together with the City of Kivalina, brought action against twenty-four oil, energy, and utility companies for federal common law nuisance, based on emission of greenhouse gases which contributed to global warming, causing the erosion of arctic sea ice and the displacement of the inhabitants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), contending that Plaintiff’s claims were non-justiciable political questions and that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Summary by: Jane Kundl

Link to original judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

Binding on the Ninth Circuit in the United States, persuasive authority for other circuits and state courts.

Key facts

Kivalina is a small city located on the tip of a six-mile barrier reef on the northwest coast of Alaska, approximately 70 miles north of the Arctic Circle. The Village of Kivalina is a federally-recognized tribe of Inupiat Native Alaskans who live in the municipality. Of 400 residents, 97 percent were indigenous Alaskans. Sea ice that forms a coastline in the fall, winter, and spring protected the land from storms and erosion. But as the sea ice became thinner, formed later, and broke up earlier, erosion and damage to property from sea storms has increased, threatening the entire city and requiring relocation of inhabitants.

Kivalina’s claim was based on greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming which in turn caused the reduction in sea ice. They argued that the defendants, 24 oil, gas, and utility companies, (the “Energy Producers”) contributed substantially to global warming and thus were responsible for their injuries. They brought a claim under federal common law nuisance, alleging that the production of greenhouse gas emissions constitutes “a substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights, including the rights to use and enjoy public and private property in Kivalina.” (p. 854). State law claims of concert of action and conspiracy to mislead were brought as well. Because the federal law claim was dismissed, the merits of the state law claims were not addressed.

Previous instances

The lower court, the US District Court of Northern California, Oakland Division, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on two grounds:

  • First, that the issue of greenhouse gases causing global warming was an inherently non-justiciable political question, because the court would have to make determinations regarding energy and environmental policy without guidance from the political branches.
  • Second, that Kivalina lacked Article III standing as they presented no facts showing the injuries were “fairly traceable” to the actions of the Energy Producers. Plaintiffs could not establish the “substantial likelihood” or “seed” causation standards. The court also concluded that Kivalina’s injury was too geographically remote from the source of harm to infer causation.

Plaintiffs appealed and the Ninth Circuit court upheld the motion. Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court which was denied.

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Ontunez Tursios v. Ashcroft

Date: 13 August 2002

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Citation: 303 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2002)

Short summary 

A Honduran man, fleeing targeted violence stemming from a land dispute and exacerbated by hurricane damage, was denied refugee status in the United States for failing to establish a nexus between his persecution and the grounds for asylum.

Summary by: David Cremins

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

This decision is a binding part of the asylum case law developed in the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) and may be persuasive in other jurisdictions in the United States. 

Key facts

The applicant for asylum, Mr. Ontunez-Tursios, moved to the town of La Ceiba in 1994 and joined other campesinos in cultivating a piece of coastal land known as Las Delicias. In 1996, a group of businessmen, wishing to sell Las Delicias to Korean investors, challenged the campesinos possession of the land, unleashing a campaign of violence and intimidation against them, during which at least two campesinos were assassinated. Mr. Ontunez-Tursios found out he was on a hit list and, after being directly threatened several times, fled to the United States, where he applied for asylum in October 1999.

During this violent dispute over land possession, in October 1998 Hurricane Mitch devastated Honduras, including Las Delicias. The storm ruined Mr. Ontunez-Tursios’ land as well as key documentary evidence against the businessmen pursuing him and the other campesinos.

Previous instances

The immigration judge who first heard Mr. Ontunez-Tursios’ case denied him refugee status because his claim did not arise on account of the enumerated grounds for persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) agreed that he failed to show a nexus between his persecution and either his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, leading to this appeal before the Fifth Circuit.

Summary of holding

In a 2-1 panel decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the rulings below, finding that the BIA correctly dismissed Mr. Ontunez-Tursios’ contention that his leadership in the land conflict did not constitute a political opinion or membership in the particular social group of “land rights leaders”. Stripping away the context of land struggle and the impacts of Hurricane Mitch, the court held that his “evidence showed no motive of the persecutors other than a private, economic one.” The court further found that Mr. Ontunez-Tursios did not qualify for withholding of removal because he was at no risk of torture in his home country, and that the Honduran government had not implicitly or explicitly acquiesced to his persecution or torture.

Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation

  • Increasingly, claims for asylum and other humanitarian protections will have to be considered in the context of climate change. The devastation wrought by Hurricane Mitch in Honduras provides an early example of how an already difficult situation – a violent battle over valuable land between the upper and lower classes in a society – is made worse following disasters. Advocates for climate migrants should note how fights over land and other forms of social violence intermix with a changing climate, including through slow-onset shifts in conditions.
  • As in other cases in jurisdictions around the world, the harm from the climate disaster itself – destruction of land and evidentiary documents – had no bearing on Mr. Ontunez-Tursios’ unsuccessful claim for asylum, even as it exacerbated his vulnerability in his home country.
  • Under United States law, the nexus prong – that persecution must be “on account of” one of the five grounds first laid out in the 1951 Refugee Convention – is often narrowly construed, such that even clear instances of persecutory violence, whether or not connected to climate change, do not qualify even sympathetic applicants such as Mr. Ontunez-Tursios for refugee status.
Proudly powered by WordPress