I. Predictions

II. Climate change-security nexusI. Human security

II. National security

III. International security

IV. Ecological security

III. Climate change-foreign policy nexusI. State practices

II. Water wars

III. Climate change refugees

IV. Are ‘climate wars’ justified?

V. Conclusions and recommendations

Climate Change (CC) & International Security

UNSC debates 2007, 2011, UNGA, 2009; UNEP, 2007;UNDP, 2007

EU, US, UK, Aus, Rus, Fin and Ger.

Climate change ‘will fuel more conflicts for decades [Obama, 2009]:

ARE ‘CLIMATE WARS’ PREDICTIONS JUSTIFIED, IN LIGHT OF FOREIGN POLICY PRACTICE?

WHAT WILL HAPPEN

Temps. will rise 1.8 - 4o Celsius by the end of the century, if not mitigated [ IPCC, 2007]

IMPACTSRising sea levels, floods, storms, violent and volatile weather, famine, water shortages [e.g. IPCC, 2007; The Economist, 2010]

Uproot millions of people [TheEconomist, 2013]

Fuel conflicts for decades [Obama, 2009]

Chaos and violence [Paskal, TheEconomist, 2010]

Threats to sovereignty and territorialintegrity [e.g. MacDonald, 2013]

Threats to human, national, internationaland ecological security

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for example,

provides a summary of how climate change may affect human rights

conferred by different conventions:

undermine human security by reducing access to, and the quality of natural resources that are important to sustain livelihoods (Barnet & Adger, 2007)

threats to human life and dignity; and threats to the security of individuals and communities

[MacDonald, 2013]

challenge state responsibility for providing security to its population

[ibid]

global inequality and poverty to build individual and community preparedness and resilience [Brown &McLeman, 2009]

According to MacDonald, 2013:

present a serious threat to the security and prosperity of nation states.

The preservation of national sovereignty and territorial boundaries from

internal and external threat is paramount

The national security establishment must anticipate such threats to

territorial integrity and secure national interests (Brzoska M, 2010)

focuses on internationalism as a response to CC, and the need for global cooperation.

The point of reference is the international

community

lead to resources scarcity & environmental degradation which will exacerbate social and political tensions, conflicts and security problems at the international arena

response to international security threats include transition to low carbon economies, and technology diffusion, expertise and resources to developing countries to enhance their adaptive capacities

e.g. Secretary General Moon ; UNEP; UNDP (2007); UNSC

(2007, 2011); UNGA (2009)

IPCC (2007)

there is need to re-establish the

relationship between people and the

natural environment.

Life on Earth is profoundly affected by

the planet’s climate.

Animals, plants, and other living beings

around the globe are moving, some,

adapting, and, in some cases, dying as

a direct or indirect result of

environmental shifts .

to re-orient societal patterns and

behaviour: to rebalance the relationship

between people and their natural

environment, both man-made and

natural.

CC is not only global, but also multidimensional, invisible, unpredictable and international [Drexhage et al., 2007]

Military Tool

Political Tool

Terrorism

Development tool

an issue for preventive diplomacy

conduct of foreign policy must involve anticipating threshold moments when latent conflicts may erupt and translate into violence

impact of climate change is projected to be more pronounced on two main issues: water and climate refugees [MacDonald, 2013]

‘water wars’ prediction :countries will wage war to safeguard their access to water

resources, especially if there is water scarcity, competitive use and the countries are

enemies due to a wider conflict [Allam, 2003]

water is scarce , in constant high demand, straddles political boundaries, its

availability fluctuates in space and time, it has no substitute [Wolf, 1998]

Middle East region has 5% of the world’s population, but only one percent of the

world’s renewable water resources.

About 60 percent of the available freshwater is in transboundary basins.

River Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates river valleys are the main sources of water in the

Middle East(SIWI, 2010).

Despite depleted water resources and growing water demand pushed by population

growth, international relations over water have, if anything, become less tense since

1970 [Allan, 2002]

Many authors predict that the impact of CC in the near future will

become overwhelming & calls for international law practitioners &

states to formulate policies to deal with CC induced refugees

especially in fragile states

HOW HAS THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN POLICY DEALT WITH WATER AND

CLIMATE REFUGEE ISSUES? ARE ‘CLIMATE WARS’ JUSTIFIED?

‘Water Wars’

Cooperation

Preventive diplomacy

‘sticky’ legal framework on

international water law

Climate Change Refugees:

[Goodwin-Gill. 1996]:

one must have crossed an international

border;

one must be fleeing persecution;

persecution must be for reasons of race,

religion, nationality, membership of a

particular social group or political

opinion; and

one must be unable or unwilling to the

protection of the country of origin or to

return there.

Complementary Protection

AU & Cartagena Declaration in Latin

America : refugee status can be

granted to people fleeing from ‘events

seriously disturbing the public order’ e.g. Congolese fleeing the eruption of Mount Nyiragongo in January 2002 sought refuge in Rwanda

Trail Smelter Arbitration: United States v

Canada

‘Water Wars’ are not justified

Climate refugees can be managed under current state practices

The assumptions of CC wars are rhetoric - not grounded in reality

Climate refugees not covered under current refugee law however,

complimentary protection and humanitarian considerations ensure that

there is protection

Strengthen refugee law to give explicit protection to CC refugees

Work citedAlam, U. Z. (2002), Questioning the water wars rationale: a case study of the Indus Waters Treaty. The Geographical Journal, 168:

341–353

Aljazeera, 2012 ‘Risk of Water Wars Rises with scarcity’ Web. 26 Aug. 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/2011622193147231653.html

Allan, J.A. Hydro-Peace in the Middle East: Why no Water Wars? A Case Study of the Jordan River Basin. SAIS Review vol. XXII no. 2 (Summer–Fall 2002)

Biermann, F. & Boas, I. 2009. Preparing for a warmer world: Towards a Global Governance to Protect Climate Change Refugees. Global Environmental Politics.10 (1). pp. 60-88.

‘‘Climate Wars,’’ The Economist, July 8, 2010.

Dyer, G. ‘Climate Wars,’ (Toronto: Random House, 2008);

Goodarzi J. “Water Tensions in the Middle East” Webster Security Forum Conference. 8 February 2013

McAdam, J. 2011. Climate Change Displacement and International Law: Complementary Protection Standards. Legal and Protection Policy Research Series. Division of International Protection. UNHCR

McDonald M. Discourses of Climate Security. Political Geography Vol. 33, pp. 42-51, 2013

Moon, B. A climate Culprit in Darfur: Washington Post, 16th June 2007.

UNEP. Sudan: Post-conflict Environmental Assessment. Nairobi: UNEP.

UNDP. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. New York. Palgrave

UNGA. Climate Change and its possible security implications: Report of the Secretary General. New York: UNGA.

Tertrais, B. “The Climate Wars Myth,” Washington Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, Summer 2011, pp. 17–29.