2. I.
II.
Predictions
Climate change-security nexus
I.
II.
III.
IV.
III.
Human security
National security
International security
Ecological security
Climate change-foreign policy nexus
I.
II.
III.
State practices
Water wars
Climate change refugees
IV. Are ‘climate wars’ justified?
V.
Conclusions and recommendations

3. 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?

4. WHAT WILL HAPPEN
IMPACTS
Rising sea
levels, floods, storms, violent and
volatile weather, famine, water
shortages [e.g. IPCC, 2007; The
Economist, 2010]
 Temps. will rise 1.8 - 4o Celsius by
the end of the century, if not
mitigated [ IPCC, 2007]

Uproot
millions
Economist, 2013]
of
people

Fuel conflicts for decades [Obama, 2009]

Chaos and violence
Economist, 2010]

Threats to sovereignty and territorial
integrity [e.g. MacDonald, 2013]

Threats to human, national, international
and ecological security
[Paskal,
[The
The

5.  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:

6. 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]

7. 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)

8.  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)

9.  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.

10.  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]

11.  ‘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]

13.  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?

14. ‘Water
Wars’
 Cooperation
 Preventive diplomacy
 ‘sticky’ legal framework on
international water law

15. 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

16.  ‘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

17. Work cited
Alam, 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.