….and to insist they have “collective governance” to maintain their cultures.
I can’t believe that anyone is spending time writing an academic paper like this one based on the phoney climate change (first called global warming!) science. Professor Fabian Shuppert of Queens University Belfast is doing just that.
Haven’t people moved throughout time based on changes in climate and changing environmental factors? Seems like one big fat excuse for the ‘great minds’ to re-order world governance to me.
His treatise reads like a Socialist wet dream!
You can read his entire 22-page draft, here, but below are just a few snippets to pique your interest.
It is titled: Governing climate refugees: Self-determination, cultural integrity and finding new territory. He is talking about moving whole Nations!
Global climate change is going to lead to the displacement of millions of human beings.
The aim of this paper is to focus on a particularly drastic and challenging case of climate refugees, namely the forced migration of a complete nation, and to present a possible governance solution, which plays off both ethical and political considerations.
The question I want to focus on is if the people of an entire nation have to relocate,where should they go and on the basis of which rights? In so doing, the paper hopes to offer a somewhat realistic picture of how the international community with its diverse array of political, economic and ethical viewpoints might react to the complex challenge of governing entire collectives of climate refugees.
The paper is divided into three sections. Section one sets out the preliminaries by explaining what kind of migrants the paper talks about and why the case of entire collectives needing a new place to live is a particularly interesting and challenging one,the solution to which might also help in devising appropriate governance in response to other cases of climate refugees. Section two takes a look at different rights all climate refugees might have, such as the right to (individual) free movement and the right to collective self-determination, arguing that future climate refugee governance should be based on collective rights, in conjunction with the protection of every refugee’s individual basic human rights.
Section three offers an account of a possible response to the problem set out in section one in light of the rights discussed in section two, while taking the issue of political interests into account. While the projected solution might not satisfy ideal ethical theory it hopefully offers a convincing account of a rights-based response in a non-ideal world.
So where do we move them? Shuppert says there is lots of unused land, we must just convince the owners to “hand it over” to the refugees!
Finding territory in general is actually not such a big problem. While there is hardly any un-owned land, there certainly exists plenty of land on which nobody lives and which thus could theoretically be used as a new home for climate refugees. However, the task of finding uninhabited land which is good enough in order to sustain its new population, with the necessary features to satisfy the cultural life world condition is much more difficult. Moreover, and that seems to be possibly the largest obstacle, the current owner of the land would still have to agree to hand over the territory to the climate refugees.
Hey, good luck with that! Come to think of it, there is a lot of unused land in Saudi Arabia!
For new readers, see our climate refugees category by clicking here.