Climate Change as a Security Risk

Introduction

Climate Change is now a security risk because it weakens the material conditions that allow states, communities, and legal systems to function: stable coastlines, predictable water supplies, reliable food production, habitable territory, public health, and effective institutions. Its legal importance does not depend on the exaggerated claim that climate change automatically causes war. The more accurate claim is sharper: climate change increases the probability, scale, and legal significance of harm where governance is weak, inequality is severe, infrastructure is exposed, or communities already live under political or economic stress (Mobjörk et al., 2016; IPCC, 2023).

That distinction matters. A drought is not, by itself, an international security crisis. A storm is not, by itself, a threat to peace. Sea-level rise is not an armed attack. Yet each can become legally significant when it threatens life, health, water, food, housing, public order, territorial administration, maritime entitlements, or the survival of vulnerable communities. Public international law must examine the chain connecting climate hazard, exposure, vulnerability, state capacity, and cross-border consequences.

The law has moved beyond treating climate change as a narrow environmental problem. Climate-related harm now engages duties of prevention, cooperation, due diligence, environmental assessment, adaptation, human rights protection, marine environmental protection, disaster preparedness, and peaceful dispute settlement. These duties arise through several legal regimes, but the central issue is not the number of regimes involved. The central issue is how they operate when foreseeable climate stress becomes human insecurity, institutional overload, displacement, or regional instability (UNFCCC, 1992; Paris Agreement, 2015; ICJ, 2025).

Recent advisory jurisprudence gives this subject a firmer doctrinal foundation. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea held that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions may constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS when they harm the marine environment through ocean warming, acidification, sea-level rise, and related effects (ITLOS, 2024). The International Court of Justice placed state obligations on climate change within a wider body of international law, including climate treaties, customary prevention, cooperation, human rights, and state responsibility (ICJ, 2025). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights also linked the climate emergency with duties to protect life, health, personal integrity, information, participation, and vulnerable groups (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2025).

The strongest legal frame is risk amplification. Climate change does not replace politics, conflict dynamics, governance failures, or economic inequality. It intensifies them. Water scarcity can deepen local disputes where institutions distribute resources unfairly. Crop failure can increase social pressure where food systems are fragile. Sea-level rise can threaten state continuity where land is small, low-lying, and central to national identity. Extreme weather can overwhelm disaster response where public services are already weak. The law must address these pathways without turning climate change into a universal explanation for every crisis.

The attached SIPRI, UNEP, and WBGU materials are useful because they identify recurring pathways of climate-related insecurity: water stress, food insecurity, coastal degradation, extreme weather, disaster exposure, migration, and conflict-sensitive governance (Schubert et al., 2008; Mobjörk et al., 2016; UNEP, n.d.). Their older empirical projections should be read carefully and updated through current science and recent legal developments. Their lasting value lies in structure: they show that climate security is not a single problem, but a set of interacting risks shaped by institutions, inequality, geography, and time.

Foreseeability is the legal hinge. Once climate harm is scientifically established and legally recognised, inaction becomes harder to justify. Due diligence does not require a state to prevent every climate-related loss. It requires reasonable and timely conduct proportionate to known risks, available capacity, and the seriousness of potential harm. That includes credible mitigation, adaptation planning, regulation of private actors, environmental impact assessment, public participation, and cooperation with other states (ILC, 2001; ICJ, 2025).

Human rights law gives climate security its most concrete human dimension. Climate harm reaches people before it reaches diplomatic forums. Heatwaves endanger life and health. Drought affects water and food. Floods destroy homes and livelihoods. Sea-level rise threatens culture, nationality, self-determination, and the territorial basis of political community. Any serious legal analysis must account for those who face the highest risk: children, Indigenous peoples, displaced persons, women, older persons, persons with disabilities, and communities in fragile or conflict-affected settings.

The Security Council has a role, but it is not the centre of the climate regime. It may consider climate-related risks when they affect peace operations, mandate implementation, conflict prevention, or post-conflict stabilisation. It should not displace the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, human rights law, environmental law, or the law of the sea. Climate security is most defensible when it supports prevention, resilience, early warning, and lawful cooperation, not when it becomes a justification for militarised climate governance.

The central legal problem is not whether climate change should be treated as war by another name. It should not. The harder question is how public international law can prevent foreseeable climate stress from becoming displacement, institutional collapse, resource violence, maritime instability, or serious human rights harm. This article addresses that question by examining climate change as a security risk through the doctrines of prevention, cooperation, due diligence, human rights protection, marine environmental obligations, state responsibility, and peaceful dispute management.

1. Climate Change and the idea of security

1.1 Security risk, threat, and risk multiplier

The legal debate on Climate Change and security requires a disciplined vocabulary. A security risk is not the same thing as a threat to peace. A risk describes a condition that increases the probability, severity, or spread of harm. It may remain latent for years, or it may combine with other pressures and produce immediate instability. A threat to peace, by contrast, is a legal-political category within the UN Charter system, especially under Security Council practice. It allows the Council to determine that a situation endangers international peace and security and may justify collective measures under the Charter (United Nations, 1945).

This distinction is not a technical decoration. It protects legal reasoning against exaggeration. Climate Change does not become an armed attack merely because its effects are severe. Nor does every drought, flood, heatwave, or wildfire become a threat to international peace. The better view is that Climate Change operates mainly as a risk multiplier. It worsens existing fragility, increases pressure on public institutions, intensifies resource stress, and exposes inequalities that were already present before the climate shock occurred (Mobjörk et al., 2016; IPCC, 2023).

The “risk multiplier” concept is useful because it avoids climate determinism. It does not claim that climate stress mechanically produces violence. It asks a more precise question: when does climate stress interact with weak governance, poverty, exclusion, corruption, armed groups, poor infrastructure, or historical grievance in a way that raises the likelihood of insecurity? That question is more suitable for legal analysis because public international law usually works through duties of conduct, prevention, cooperation, assessment, and protection, not through simplistic causal labels.

For example, water scarcity in a well-governed basin may lead to technical cooperation, conservation, and negotiated allocation. The same scarcity in a politically divided region may deepen mistrust, trigger discriminatory distribution, empower armed groups, or produce forced movement. The physical hazard may be similar, but the legal problem differs. In the first case, the relevant legal focus is cooperative management. In the second, it may include human rights protection, humanitarian access, peacebuilding, and regional dispute prevention.

The UN Security Council has occasionally addressed climate-related risks, especially where they affect conflict prevention, peace operations, and peacebuilding. That does not make climate change a general Chapter VII issue. The Council’s role is strongest when climate impacts affect a concrete conflict setting, complicate mandate implementation, or endanger post-conflict stabilisation. The climate treaty regime remains the primary framework for mitigation and adaptation. Security Council practice can add risk awareness, but it should not replace climate law, environmental law, development cooperation, or human rights protection.

The legal danger lies in collapsing all these categories into one word: “security”. Used carefully, security analysis helps identify foreseeable harm before it becomes crisis. Used carelessly, it permits inflated claims, institutional overreach, and weak doctrine. A strong public international law article must keep the distinction clear: Climate Change is a security risk because it increases the likelihood and severity of legally relevant harm; it becomes a threat to peace only where the facts and institutional context justify that conclusion under the UN Charter.

1.2 Human security and state security

Human security is the necessary starting point because climate harm usually reaches people before it reaches diplomatic institutions. It appears through unsafe water, crop failure, heat stress, disease exposure, displacement, destroyed homes, lost livelihoods, and weakened access to public services. The language of human security gained prominence because traditional state-centred security did not adequately capture threats to survival, dignity, and daily life that do not originate in military attack (UNDP, 1994).

Climate Change exposes that gap. A coastal community losing land to erosion may not be facing an invading army, but it may be losing housing, cultural sites, freshwater, schools, health facilities, and access to work. A prolonged drought may not cross a border as a military force, but it can undermine food security, increase malnutrition, damage livelihoods, and produce social pressure. These are not abstract policy concerns. They touch protected interests under international human rights law, including life, health, food, water, housing, culture, and non-discrimination (OHCHR, 2021; ICJ, 2025).

State security enters when those human harms begin to affect institutional capacity and territorial administration. A state must be able to provide basic services, maintain public order, manage borders, protect infrastructure, regulate resources, respond to disasters, and preserve social cohesion. Climate stress can weaken each of these functions. Heatwaves strain health systems. Floods damage roads, ports, and electricity networks. Droughts force difficult allocation choices. Sea-level rise threatens land records, coastal defences, maritime claims, and, in extreme cases, the practical basis of state continuity.

This does not mean that vulnerable states are security problems. That framing is legally and politically dangerous. The problem is not the existence of vulnerable populations or fragile institutions. The problem is the combination of foreseeable climate harm, inadequate support, uneven responsibility, and weak protection. Public international law should not turn affected communities into objects of control. It should strengthen their rights, agency, participation, and access to remedies.

Small island states show the issue clearly. Their security concern is not only military defence. It is the preservation of territory, freshwater, maritime zones, nationality, culture, and political identity under conditions of sea-level rise. The legal questions include adaptation finance, maritime stability, protection of displaced persons, state continuity, and self-determination. A purely military idea of security cannot explain these problems. A human-centred and legally grounded approach can.

The relationship between human security and state security is not hierarchical. They overlap. A state that fails to protect people against foreseeable climate harm weakens its own legitimacy and capacity. A community deprived of food, water, shelter, or safety becomes less able to participate in public life and more exposed to exploitation. Climate Change becomes a security risk at the point where personal insecurity and institutional stress reinforce each other.

1.3 International security and cascading harm

Climate risks rarely remain confined within one administrative boundary. Rivers cross borders. Food markets react to harvest failures in distant regions. Fisheries move as oceans warm. Disasters affect migration routes, insurance systems, humanitarian budgets, military logistics, and supply chains. Climate Change is international not only because greenhouse gases mix globally in the atmosphere, but because its effects travel through legal, economic, ecological, and social systems (IPCC, 2023).

Cascading harm is central to this analysis. A drought may reduce agricultural output. Lower output may raise food prices. Price shocks may increase social pressure in import-dependent states. Public unrest may weaken already fragile institutions. Displacement may place pressure on neighbouring areas. None of these steps is automatic, but each is plausible where vulnerability is high and adaptive capacity is low. The legal relevance lies in the foreseeability of the chain, not in a claim of mechanical causation.

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report is important for legal reasoning because it confirms that risks and projected losses increase with every increment of warming. It also stresses compound and cascading risks, especially where climate hazards interact with poverty, conflict, inequality, unsustainable land use, weak governance, and limited adaptation capacity (IPCC, 2023). These findings matter because courts and treaty bodies increasingly use scientific evidence to assess foreseeability, reasonableness, urgency, and the adequacy of state action.

International security is also affected through maritime space. Ocean warming, acidification, sea-level rise, and changes in marine ecosystems affect fisheries, coastal infrastructure, navigation, marine biodiversity, and maritime entitlements. The 2024 ITLOS Advisory Opinion made this connection legally concrete by treating anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as capable of falling within the concept of marine pollution under UNCLOS, where the required effects on the marine environment are present (ITLOS, 2024). That opinion strengthens the link between climate harm, ocean governance, and international legal responsibility.

Transboundary water systems provide another example. Climate-related changes in precipitation, snowpack, glacier melt, and river flow can intensify disputes over allocation, dams, irrigation, hydropower, and drinking water. The relevant legal tools include equitable and reasonable utilisation, the duty to prevent significant harm, notification, consultation, data exchange, and peaceful settlement. These rules do not eliminate political conflict, but they provide a legal structure for preventing resource stress from becoming interstate tension.

The same logic applies to humanitarian crises. Severe weather events and slow-onset degradation can increase demand for international assistance. Conflict-affected states may be least able to deliver adaptation and disaster response. Humanitarian actors may face insecurity, damaged infrastructure, and competing legal mandates. Climate Change then becomes a multiplier of operational risk for international organisations and relief agencies.

A serious legal analysis must avoid treating cascading harm as speculation. The task is to identify plausible pathways, legal duties attached to those pathways, and evidentiary standards needed to support responsibility or preventive action. Cascading risk does not excuse a vague argument. It demands better evidence, more careful institutional design, and earlier cooperation.

1.4 The danger of over-securitisation

The security framing of Climate Change carries real benefits. It can make foreseeable harm visible, push institutions to act earlier, and connect climate policy with conflict prevention, disaster preparedness, and peacebuilding. Yet the same framing can produce distorted responses. If climate change is described mainly as a security threat, governments may prioritise border control, military planning, emergency powers, and surveillance over adaptation, rights protection, and climate justice (Trombetta, 2008; McDonald, 2013).

Over-securitisation is legally dangerous because it can shift attention away from responsibility. The communities most exposed to climate harm are often those least responsible for historical emissions. Treating them primarily as migration risks or instability risks reverses the moral and legal structure of the problem. The legal question should not be how wealthier states can shield themselves from climate-affected populations. It should be how states can reduce foreseeable harm, support adaptation, protect rights, and cooperate with those facing the heaviest burdens.

This danger is visible in migration debates. Climate-related movement is often discussed through the language of border pressure. That is incomplete and often misleading. Most climate-related displacement occurs within states, and many people move because their rights, livelihoods, and safety have already been damaged. A rights-based approach asks about protection, dignity, non-refoulement, planned relocation, access to services, and participation. A securitised approach may ask only how to prevent entry.

Emergency governance is another risk. Climate disasters may justify temporary exceptional measures, but emergency powers can also restrict participation, weaken accountability, and marginalise affected groups. International law does not prevent states from acting decisively during disasters. It does require legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and respect for non-derogable rights. Climate security policy must preserve these limits.

There is also a resource allocation problem. If climate security becomes dominated by defence institutions, climate finance may move toward strategic infrastructure and military preparedness rather than local adaptation, resilient livelihoods, early warning, disaster risk reduction, and community-led prevention. That would be a poor legal and policy outcome. The most defensible climate security strategy is preventive and civilian in character.

The better approach is not to abandon security language. It is to control it. Climate Change should be treated as a security risk when it affects protected legal interests, institutional capacity, peacebuilding, cross-border stability, or human survival. The response should remain anchored in prevention, cooperation, adaptation, human rights, environmental protection, and peaceful dispute management. Security analysis has value only when it clarifies duties and improves protection.

2. The scientific baseline for legal analysis

2.1 Climate science as legal evidence

Climate science now plays a direct role in legal analysis. Courts, treaty bodies, arbitral tribunals, human rights institutions, and international organisations rely on scientific assessments to understand risk, causation, vulnerability, and the adequacy of state conduct. The IPCC is especially influential because it synthesises peer-reviewed scientific knowledge through an intergovernmental process. Its reports do not create legal obligations by themselves, but they help identify the factual conditions that legal obligations address (IPCC, 2023).

This matters for due diligence. A state’s duty of conduct is assessed against what it knew or should have known, the seriousness of the risk, its capacity to act, and the reasonableness of the measures adopted. Climate science informs each element. It shows that climate harm is foreseeable, that some impacts are already occurring, that risks rise with warming, and that delayed mitigation increases future loss. This evidence makes generic claims of uncertainty legally weaker.

Scientific evidence is also central to environmental impact assessment. Projects involving fossil fuel extraction, high-emission infrastructure, coastal development, deforestation, large dams, or vulnerable ecosystems may require assessment of climate effects and climate vulnerability. A lawful assessment cannot be limited to immediate local pollution. It may need to address cumulative emissions, long-term risk, transboundary effects, disaster exposure, and alternatives where serious harm is foreseeable.

The precautionary principle adds further significance. Where there is risk of serious or irreversible harm, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing protective measures. Climate Change fits this logic because some impacts may be irreversible on human timescales, including species loss, ice-sheet instability, coral reef damage, and loss of habitable land. The legal role of precaution is not to replace evidence. It prevents uncertainty from becoming an excuse for paralysis.

The advisory opinions of ITLOS and the ICJ show how science and law now interact. ITLOS relied heavily on the scientific understanding of greenhouse gas emissions, ocean warming, acidification, and sea-level rise to interpret UNCLOS obligations (ITLOS, 2024). The ICJ used climate science to assess the scope and seriousness of state obligations concerning the climate system (ICJ, 2025). These opinions make clear that scientific findings are not an external background; they shape the interpretation and application of legal duties.

Still, legal argument must not pretend that science answers every question. Science can identify risk, probability, pathways, and physical attribution. Law must determine obligation, breach, responsibility, remedy, jurisdiction, and institutional competence. Confusing these tasks produces poor analysis. The best climate-security reasoning uses science to establish the factual baseline and law to assess what states and institutions must do with that knowledge.

2.2 Exposure, vulnerability, and inequality

Climate security is not determined by hazard alone. The same storm, drought, or heatwave can produce very different outcomes depending on housing quality, public health systems, social protection, infrastructure, political inclusion, land rights, early warning, and access to finance. Exposure identifies who or what is in harm’s way. Vulnerability explains why some people, places, or institutions suffer more serious harm than others. Inequality often determines both.

This point is essential for legal accuracy. If climate security is presented only as a matter of physical events, the analysis misses discrimination, poverty, exclusion, colonial legacies, and uneven development. International law cannot address climate risk properly without asking who is exposed, who has the capacity to adapt, who participates in decision-making, and who bears the cost of protective measures.

The IPCC has emphasised that vulnerability is shaped by patterns of inequity and marginalisation, including poverty, gender inequality, colonial histories, governance weakness, and limited access to resources (IPCC, 2022; IPCC, 2023). This is why billions of people may live in contexts highly vulnerable to climate change, even though the physical hazards differ greatly across regions. A person living in an informal settlement on a floodplain faces a different legal and practical reality than a person protected by insurance, drainage systems, savings, and political influence.

Human rights law translates this fact into an obligation. States must protect rights without discrimination and must pay particular attention to groups facing heightened risk. Climate adaptation that protects wealthy districts while leaving informal communities exposed may raise issues of equality and participation. A disaster response that excludes migrants or Indigenous communities may breach non-discrimination duties. Water allocation during drought may become legally suspect where it privileges powerful users and leaves basic needs unmet.

The security effects of inequality are also practical. Where people believe that climate-related scarcity is being managed unfairly, social trust declines. Where authorities distribute aid through patronage, disaster response can deepen grievance. Where adaptation projects take land without consultation, they may create new conflict. Climate Change then becomes a security risk not only because the climate hazard is severe, but because public authorities respond in ways perceived as unequal or abusive.

Inequality also exists between states. Many states most exposed to climate harm contributed least to cumulative emissions and have limited fiscal capacity for adaptation. This asymmetry lies at the heart of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities under the climate regime. It also supports the legal and moral case for finance, technology transfer, capacity-building, and cooperation (UNFCCC, 1992; Paris Agreement, 2015).

For legal researchers, the practical lesson is clear: climate security analysis must include vulnerability mapping, distributional analysis, and participation. A doctrinal discussion that ignores inequality will misread both the risk and the obligation. Climate Change becomes legally significant not only through the force of physical events, but through the unequal social conditions that determine who is harmed first and worst.

2.3 Foreseeability and due diligence

Foreseeability is one of the main bridges between climate science and legal responsibility. Once a serious risk is known, a state cannot treat it as legally invisible. Climate Change has been studied for decades, assessed by the IPCC across multiple cycles, negotiated in global treaties, and addressed by international courts and human rights bodies. The factual basis for general awareness is now strong.

Due diligence is not an obligation to guarantee that no harm occurs. It is an obligation to act with the level of care required by the risk. Its content varies according to context, capacity, available knowledge, and the importance of the protected interest. In climate matters, due diligence requires more than symbolic policy. It requires credible regulation, implementation, monitoring, and revision, where measures are plainly insufficient.

The standard becomes more demanding where the risk is serious, foreseeable, and potentially irreversible. For climate security, that includes sea-level rise threatening low-lying states, heatwaves endangering life and health, drought affecting water and food systems, and disasters overwhelming fragile institutions. A state with greater technical and financial capacity will usually be expected to do more than a state with limited resources, but limited capacity does not remove the duty to cooperate, plan, assess, and protect.

The ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion is significant because it connects climate obligations with due diligence, prevention, cooperation, and state responsibility. It also treats omissions as legally relevant. A state may breach international obligations not only by authorising harmful activity, but by failing to regulate emissions, failing to adopt adequate measures, or failing to act with appropriate care in light of known risks (ICJ, 2025).

The same logic applies to private actors. Corporations do not usually bear the same direct obligations as states under general public international law, but states must regulate activities under their jurisdiction or control where those activities create serious environmental risk. Fossil fuel licensing, subsidies, land-use approvals, financial disclosure rules, deforestation control, and industrial regulation can all become relevant to due diligence analysis. The legal issue is not merely what the state emits directly. It is also what the state permits, supports, ignores, or fails to regulate.

Foreseeability also affects adaptation. A state that knows certain regions are exposed to flooding, drought, wildfire, or heat stress must take reasonable measures to reduce vulnerability. This may include land-use planning, building standards, early warning systems, public health measures, water management, evacuation planning, and protection of critical infrastructure. Where risks are known and affordable measures are available, prolonged inaction becomes harder to defend.

Climate Change forces a practical conclusion: due diligence must be dynamic. The required level of care changes as scientific knowledge improves, risks intensify, and available measures become clearer. A policy that seemed adequate years ago may become inadequate if warming accelerates, impacts worsen, or better tools become available. Lawful conduct requires continual assessment, not one-time compliance.

2.4 Attribution and evidentiary limits

Attribution is one of the hardest questions in climate security law. The word is often used too loosely. Physical attribution, legal causation, and responsibility are related but separate. Physical attribution asks how human-induced climate change contributed to an event, pattern, or risk. Legal causation asks whether a legally relevant connection exists between conduct and harm. Responsibility asks whether an obligation was breached and what consequences follow.

Climate science has made major progress in event attribution. Researchers can increasingly assess how anthropogenic emissions influence the probability or intensity of heatwaves, heavy rainfall, drought conditions, wildfire risk, and other climate-related events. This strengthens the evidentiary basis for legal claims. Yet improved science does not remove all legal difficulty. Courts still need to identify the relevant obligation, the responsible actor, the breach, the injured party, the causal link, and the appropriate remedy.

The global nature of emissions complicates this task. Climate harm results from cumulative emissions produced by many states and private actors over long periods. A single state may contribute to the risk without being the sole cause of a specific injury. That does not make responsibility impossible, but it makes the analysis more demanding. Legal reasoning may need to address contribution, proportionality, shared responsibility, cumulative harm, and standards of proof.

Security-related harm adds another layer. If climate stress contributes to displacement, resource violence, or institutional collapse, the causal chain will usually include governance failure, conflict dynamics, poverty, discrimination, armed actors, or economic shocks. Climate Change may be a material factor without being the only factor. A legally credible argument must identify how the climate factor interacts with other causes and why that interaction matters under a specific legal rule.

There is also a difference between prevention and compensation. Preventive duties can arise when serious harm is foreseeable, even before injury is fully attributable to a specific actor. Compensation usually requires a tighter link between breach and damage. This distinction is crucial. International law may support stronger mitigation, adaptation, assessment, and cooperation even where litigation for monetary compensation remains difficult.

The law of state responsibility provides the structure, but not an easy shortcut. It requires an internationally wrongful act, attribution of conduct to the state, breach of an international obligation, and legal consequences such as cessation, assurances of non-repetition, or reparation where the conditions are met (ILC, 2001). Climate claims must pass through that structure. Broad moral responsibility for climate harm is not the same as legal responsibility for a specific breach.

Evidence will decide much of the field’s future. Successful legal arguments will depend on emissions data, scientific attribution, vulnerability assessments, administrative records, regulatory history, expert testimony, and proof of feasible alternatives. Poorly supported claims may damage the credibility of climate litigation. Strong claims will connect science, legal duty, state conduct, and harm with precision.

The evidentiary limits should not be used as a shield for inaction. They show why lawyers must distinguish different legal tasks. Science can establish risk and contribution. Public international law decides what level of conduct is required and what consequences follow when states fall short. Climate Change is legally manageable only if both disciplines are used carefully.

3. The legal architecture of climate security

3.1 The UN Charter framework

3.1.1 Peace, cooperation, and prevention

The UN Charter does not define international peace and security only through military enforcement. Article 1 places prevention, peaceful settlement, cooperation, and respect for international law at the centre of the Organisation’s purposes. The Charter requires the United Nations to maintain international peace and security by preventing and removing threats to peace, settling disputes by peaceful means, and promoting cooperation in economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian matters (United Nations, 1945).

That preventive logic is directly relevant to Climate Change. Climate-related instability may appear through water stress, food insecurity, disaster displacement, damage to public infrastructure, loss of livelihoods, and pressure on fragile institutions. These are not always matters for coercive action. Often, they are matters for early warning, diplomacy, adaptation, humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, and conflict-sensitive resource governance.

Article 1 also matters because it connects peace with international cooperation. Climate security is not only about avoiding violence after a crisis starts. It is about preventing foreseeable harm before it overwhelms institutions. A state exposed to repeated floods, droughts, or coastal loss may need technical support, finance, risk data, disaster planning, and regional cooperation. The Charter’s cooperative structure supports that approach.

This reading avoids a common mistake. The Charter should not be used to turn every climate impact into a military security issue. A drought may create urgent legal duties without becoming a Chapter VII matter. A storm may require international assistance without triggering coercive measures. Climate security fits the Charter best when understood as prevention, not exceptionalism.

Climate Change also tests the relationship between sovereign equality and collective responsibility. The Charter protects states against unlawful intervention, but it also recognises that international problems require organised cooperation. That balance is central for vulnerable states. They should not be treated as objects of external security management. Their position is stronger when climate security is framed through legal cooperation, capacity-building, and respect for self-determination.

3.1.2 Chapter VI and peaceful settlement

Chapter VI provides the most appropriate Charter pathway for many climate-related disputes. Article 33 lists negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. These methods matter because climate stress can deepen disputes without creating an armed conflict.

Shared watercourses are a clear example. Reduced river flow, glacier retreat, drought, or competing uses of hydropower and irrigation may increase tension between riparian states. The legal answer should begin with data exchange, notification, consultation, joint management, and, where needed, third-party settlement. Peaceful settlement gives states a structured way to manage scarcity before it becomes confrontation.

Fisheries disputes may follow a similar pattern. Ocean warming and acidification can alter species distribution and affect coastal economies. Where fish stocks shift across maritime zones, states may disagree over access, quotas, conservation measures, and enforcement. Negotiation and regional fisheries mechanisms become security tools because they reduce the risk of unilateral action at sea.

Maritime boundaries and sea-level rise raise harder questions. If coasts recede, islands become uninhabitable, or baselines become unstable, disputes may arise over maritime zones and resource entitlements. Chapter VI methods are useful because these questions require legal stability and technical precision, not coercive rhetoric. Arbitration or adjudication may be appropriate where legal disagreement blocks cooperation.

Climate-related disaster cooperation also belongs within this preventive frame. Floods, fires, cyclones, and slow-onset degradation may require cross-border rescue, evacuation planning, humanitarian corridors, public health measures, and infrastructure coordination. Where states disagree over assistance, border movement, or responsibility for transboundary harm, peaceful settlement mechanisms help preserve cooperation during a crisis.

Relocation agreements may become more important as sea-level rise and extreme weather affect low-lying islands and coastal communities. These agreements raise legal questions involving nationality, land rights, cultural protection, family unity, access to services, and political participation. They should be negotiated before displacement becomes chaotic. Chapter VI offers a legal culture of consent, dialogue, and dispute avoidance that fits these problems better than emergency improvisation.

3.1.3 Chapter VII and legal restraint

Chapter VII gives the Security Council broad powers when it determines the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression under Article 39. The Council’s practice shows that threats to peace are not limited to traditional interstate war. Civil wars, terrorism, humanitarian crises, and regional instability have all entered its agenda in different contexts (Klabbers, 2024).

Climate Change may be relevant to Chapter VII when its effects interact with a concrete peace and security situation. For example, climate-related drought may intensify conflict over land and water in a region where armed groups already operate. Floods may obstruct peacekeeping logistics. Food insecurity may deepen post-conflict instability. In such circumstances, the Council may request reporting, mandate climate risk analysis, support peacebuilding, or adjust mission planning.

The Council’s mandate is broad, but it is not unlimited. Climate Change does not automatically authorise sanctions, military deployments, or coercive measures. A general link between climate harm and insecurity is not enough. The Council must still act within the Charter, respect the purposes and principles of the United Nations, and tailor any response to the situation before it.

Legal restraint matters for legitimacy. If climate security becomes a pretext for coercive governance, vulnerable states may see it as a mandate expansion rather than protection. That would weaken cooperation. The stronger Security Council role is narrower: integrate climate risk where it affects conflict prevention, peacekeeping, humanitarian access, and post-conflict stabilisation.

The Council should also avoid displacing the climate regime. The UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are universal frameworks built around mitigation, adaptation, finance, transparency, and differentiated responsibilities. They are not perfect, but they are the central legal instruments for climate governance. Security Council engagement should support those frameworks, not replace them.

3.2 The UNFCCC and Paris Agreement

3.2.1 Common but differentiated duties

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is central to climate security. It recognises that states share responsibility for addressing Climate Change, but they do not share the same historical contribution, economic capacity, technological resources, or exposure to harm. The UNFCCC expresses this principle clearly, and the Paris Agreement confirms that implementation must reflect equity and different national circumstances (UNFCCC, 1992; Paris Agreement, 2015).

This principle is not only about fairness in emissions policy. It has direct security relevance. Many states facing severe climate risks contributed little to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. Small island developing states, least developed countries, drought-prone regions, and fragile coastal states often lack the fiscal and institutional capacity to adapt at the necessary speed. Their insecurity is not self-generated. It is linked to a global emissions history shaped largely by industrialised economies.

A legal architecture that ignores this asymmetry is incomplete. Equal formal obligations may produce unequal real burdens. If a state lacks resources to build coastal defences, diversify water systems, strengthen health services, or relocate communities safely, climate risk can escalate into governance stress. Climate finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building are part of the security response because they reduce foreseeable instability.

Common but differentiated responsibilities also resist a punitive approach toward vulnerable states. A state overwhelmed by drought, disaster, or sea-level rise should not be treated primarily as a source of migration risk or regional disorder. The relevant legal question is how the international system should support resilience while requiring all states to act according to responsibility and capacity.

At the same time, differentiation does not excuse inaction. Every party has obligations under the climate regime. The content and intensity of those obligations vary, but all states must participate in good faith, adopt climate measures, and cooperate. Climate security depends on that combination: universal participation, differentiated burdens, and serious implementation.

3.2.2 NDCs and due diligence

Nationally determined contributions are often described as political pledges. That description is incomplete. Under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, each party must prepare, communicate, and maintain successive NDCs, and must pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving them. Successive NDCs must represent progression and reflect the highest possible ambition, while taking account of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (Paris Agreement, 2015).

The ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion gives this structure stronger legal significance. The Court treated NDC-related obligations as part of a legally binding framework, not a voluntary public relations exercise. The duty to formulate and maintain an NDC is not the same as a guaranteed duty to achieve a precise emissions outcome, but it is also not empty discretion. It requires conduct capable of contributing to the Paris temperature goals, especially the 1.5°C objective recognised in current climate law and practice (ICJ, 2025).

Due diligence is the key standard. A state must act with the care required by the seriousness of the climate risk, its capabilities, and the available scientific knowledge. A weak NDC, unsupported by credible domestic measures, may fail that standard if it does not reflect progression, ambition, or a reasonable contribution to global mitigation. The legal inquiry is not satisfied by the existence of a document. It asks whether the state’s conduct is serious, evidence-based, and capable of implementation.

This has security implications. If NDCs are too weak, global warming intensifies. Higher warming increases disaster exposure, food insecurity, sea-level rise, water stress, and displacement pressure. Defective mitigation today becomes a security risk tomorrow. NDCs are not usually framed as security instruments, but they reduce security risks by limiting the scale of future harm.

The Court’s approach also affects fossil fuel policy. Climate obligations cannot be assessed only through national targets while states continue to authorise high-emission activity without credible controls. Licensing, subsidies, public finance, and regulatory omissions may be relevant where they undermine mitigation duties. The legal analysis must connect formal climate commitments with actual state conduct.

3.2.3 Adaptation, finance, and cooperation

Adaptation is central to climate security because mitigation alone cannot prevent all harm already locked into the climate system. Article 7 of the Paris Agreement recognises adaptation as a global challenge with local, subnational, national, regional, and international dimensions. For states exposed to drought, floods, sea-level rise, heat, and extreme weather, adaptation is not an optional policy. It is a practical condition for public safety and institutional continuity (Paris Agreement, 2015).

Underfunded adaptation creates security risks. Fragile water systems increase competition during drought. Weak coastal protection increases displacement after storms. Poor land-use planning exposes communities to floods and landslides. Inadequate public health systems raise mortality during heatwaves. Where state capacity is already limited, these pressures can produce institutional overload.

Finance should be understood as prevention, not charity. Climate finance helps states reduce foreseeable harm, protect rights, and maintain public functions. It can support early warning systems, resilient agriculture, water infrastructure, coastal protection, disaster preparedness, health adaptation, and planned relocation. These measures reduce the chance that climate stress will become a humanitarian crisis or regional instability.

The Paris Agreement’s finance provisions are linked to this logic. Developed country parties are required to provide financial resources to assist developing country parties with mitigation and adaptation, while other parties are encouraged to provide support voluntarily (Paris Agreement, 2015). The adequacy, accessibility, and predictability of finance matter as much as headline figures. A state cannot build resilience with fragmented, delayed, or inaccessible support.

Cooperation is also essential. Climate security requires shared data, technical assistance, disaster coordination, regional planning, and support for conflict-sensitive adaptation. Local adaptation projects can create new disputes if they redistribute land, water, or funds unfairly. International support should require participation, transparency, and safeguards for affected communities.

Loss and damage sit close to this debate. It concerns harms that cannot be fully avoided through mitigation or adaptation. It does not automatically resolve questions of legal responsibility, but it recognises that some climate impacts are already producing severe human and material loss. A credible climate security framework must include support for recovery, dignity, and continuity after unavoidable harm.

3.3 Customary international law

3.3.1 Prevention of significant harm

The no-harm principle is one of the most important customary rules for climate security. It requires states to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause significant harm to other states or areas beyond national jurisdiction. The principle is associated with arbitral and judicial authorities, including Trail Smelter, Corfu Channel, Nuclear Weapons, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, and Pulp Mills (Trail Smelter Arbitration, 1941; ICJ, 1949; ICJ, 1996; ICJ, 1997; ICJ, 2010).

In climate law, the principle is difficult but unavoidable. Greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, diffuse, and produced by many actors. That complexity does not remove the rule. It requires careful application. States must regulate activities under their jurisdiction or control where those activities contribute to significant transboundary harm. The standard is one of due diligence, not strict liability.

The obligation is especially relevant to high-emission sectors. Fossil fuel extraction, power generation, industrial production, deforestation, land-use change, transport, and public subsidies may all fall within the state’s regulatory sphere. A state cannot avoid responsibility simply because private actors produce the emissions. The duty of prevention includes reasonable regulation, supervision, enforcement, and assessment.

Significant harm in the climate context includes more than physical damage to territory. It may involve harm to marine ecosystems, water systems, agricultural production, public health, coastal infrastructure, and the conditions necessary for the enjoyment of human rights. The ICJ’s climate advisory opinion confirms that climate obligations must be read across multiple regimes, including customary prevention and cooperation (ICJ, 2025).

The preventive rule is valuable because it shifts the legal inquiry toward action before catastrophic harm occurs. Waiting for irreversible sea-level rise, ecosystem collapse, or mass displacement would defeat the purpose of prevention. Climate security requires early intervention based on foreseeable risk.

3.3.2 Cooperation as a legal duty

Cooperation is not a diplomatic preference in climate law. It is a legal duty embedded in the UN Charter, the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the law of the sea, international watercourse law, human rights practice, and customary environmental law. Climate Change cannot be managed by isolated state action because the causes and effects cross borders.

In climate security, cooperation has practical content. States must exchange information, support scientific research, provide early warning, coordinate disaster response, manage shared resources, reduce emissions, assist adaptation, and address displacement risks. Cooperation also matters for loss and damage, relocation planning, and protection of populations affected by slow-onset events.

Shared river basins show why cooperation is not optional. If upstream states build dams, divert water, or fail to share hydrological data during drought, downstream states may face severe harm. The same logic applies to fisheries, marine pollution, wildfire smoke, disease risk, food trade, and disaster response. Climate stress makes cooperation more urgent because margins for error become smaller.

Cooperation must also be good-faith cooperation. Formal meetings without data, delay tactics, or symbolic consultation may not be enough. Where serious harm is foreseeable, states should engage with adequate information, timely notice, and willingness to consider the interests of affected states and communities.

The duty also has an institutional dimension. International organisations can help translate cooperation into operational practice through risk assessment, technical support, finance, coordination platforms, and dispute prevention. UNEP’s work on climate, peace, and security illustrates how environmental analysis, local dialogue, and natural resource governance can support resilience in fragile settings (UNEP, n.d.).

3.3.3 Environmental impact assessment

Environmental impact assessment has become a central tool for preventing transboundary harm. In Pulp Mills, the ICJ treated EIA as a requirement under general international law where there is a risk of significant transboundary harm (ICJ, 2010). Later jurisprudence reinforced the importance of assessment, notification, and cooperation in environmentally sensitive contexts.

Climate Change expands the function of EIA. Assessment should not be limited to immediate local pollution. It should consider long-term emissions, cumulative impacts, climate vulnerability, infrastructure exposure, disaster risk, and cross-border effects. A coastal project, for example, may require analysis of sea-level rise, storm surge, erosion, emergency access, and effects on nearby communities. A fossil fuel project may require analysis of downstream emissions and compatibility with climate obligations.

EIA can also reveal security risks. A dam may affect downstream water availability. A large adaptation project may alter land access for pastoralists. A coastal defence system may protect one area while increasing erosion elsewhere. A biofuel project may affect food security. These are not purely environmental questions. They may influence social stability, livelihoods, and rights.

Public participation is essential to the quality of assessment. Local communities often understand seasonal water patterns, land use, disaster histories, and livelihood vulnerabilities that technical reports miss. Excluding them weakens both legality and accuracy. Climate-sensitive EIA should include affected groups early enough to influence decisions.

Assessment must also be updated. Climate risk changes over time as warming increases, sea levels rise, and scientific knowledge improves. A one-time study may become obsolete. For high-risk projects, monitoring and adaptive management are needed to keep the state’s conduct within due diligence.

3.4 The law of the sea

3.4.1 GHG emissions as marine pollution

The law of the sea has become a major part of climate security. Oceans absorb heat and carbon dioxide, suffer acidification, experience sea-level rise, and support fisheries, biodiversity, transport, and coastal livelihoods. Damage to the marine environment can become a security risk when it affects food supplies, maritime zones, coastal infrastructure, and the survival of small island states.

The 2024 ITLOS Advisory Opinion is a major legal development. The Tribunal held that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions fall within the UNCLOS definition of pollution of the marine environment when they result, or are likely to result, in deleterious effects such as harm to marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities, impairment of seawater quality, or reduction of amenities (ITLOS, 2024).

This finding matters because UNCLOS does not expressly mention Climate Change, greenhouse gas emissions, or ocean acidification. ITLOS interpreted the Convention in light of current scientific knowledge and the treaty’s environmental obligations. The absence of climate terminology did not exclude climate-related harm from the Convention’s scope.

The opinion also connects climate obligations with areas beyond national jurisdiction. Marine pollution caused by greenhouse gas emissions affects the high seas, the Area, biodiversity, and shared ecological systems. This strengthens the view that climate harm is not only a domestic regulatory issue. It is a matter of common maritime concern.

For security analysis, the consequence is clear. Ocean-related climate harm affects fisheries, coastal protection, navigation, ports, offshore infrastructure, and maritime entitlements. These interests are central to economic security and political stability for many coastal and island states.

3.4.2 Marine protection and due diligence

UNCLOS Article 192 imposes a general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. Article 193 recognises the sovereign right of states to exploit natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies, but that right must be exercised consistently with the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. Article 194 requires states to take necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment (UNCLOS, 1982).

ITLOS read these provisions as imposing due diligence obligations in the climate context. The standard is demanding because the risks are serious and scientifically established. States must adopt laws, regulations, administrative measures, and enforcement practices capable of addressing greenhouse gas emissions that harm the marine environment (ITLOS, 2024).

The standard remains variable. Capacity, available means, and national circumstances matter. Yet variability is not a licence for passivity. All states must act with appropriate care, and states with greater capacity may be expected to adopt stronger measures. This approach mirrors wider climate law: responsibility is shared, but capability affects the level of expected conduct.

Marine protection also includes cooperation, monitoring, scientific assessment, and information exchange. Climate impacts on the ocean cannot be managed by individual coastal states alone. Ocean warming and acidification affect ecosystems across maritime zones. Scientific cooperation and regional marine institutions are necessary to make UNCLOS duties operational.

The security relevance is concrete. If fisheries collapse, coastal livelihoods disappear. If coral reefs die, natural storm protection weakens. If sea-level rise accelerates, ports, homes, roads, and freshwater lenses become vulnerable. Marine due diligence is not an abstract environmental duty. It protects the systems on which coastal societies depend.

3.4.3 Sea-level rise and legal stability

Sea-level rise creates some of the most difficult legal problems in climate security. It threatens coastlines, baselines, islands, maritime zones, territorial administration, infrastructure, freshwater, homes, and burial sites. For small island states, it may threaten the physical basis of national life. The issue reaches beyond property loss. It concerns nationality, culture, self-determination, state continuity, and access to marine resources.

Baselines are central because maritime zones are measured from them. If coasts retreat or islands become submerged, questions arise about the stability of territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelf entitlements. Legal instability could produce serious consequences for fisheries, seabed resources, navigation, and national revenue.

A strong climate security approach favours stability. Maritime entitlements should not disappear automatically because sea-level rise alters the physical coastline. Many small island states argue that fixed baselines and stable maritime zones are necessary to protect legal certainty and equitable survival. That position is increasingly influential in international legal discussion, including work connected to sea-level rise and international law.

Statehood raises even deeper questions. Traditional doctrine links statehood to territory, population, government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states. Climate Change places pressure on that model, where territory becomes uninhabitable. Klabbers’ discussion of statehood and territory provides useful background, but current legal analysis must account for the exceptional position of states whose territory is threatened by a global process they did little to create (Klabbers, 2024).

The strongest position is continuity. A state should not lose legal personality simply because climate impacts make parts of its territory uninhabitable or force the relocation of some of its population. Continuity protects treaty rights, nationality, maritime claims, diplomatic relations, and collective identity. It also avoids a legal vacuum for affected people.

Sea-level rise also affects self-determination. Relocation must not reduce a people to a population to be administered elsewhere. It must preserve political voice, cultural identity, nationality, family life, land connections, and participation in decisions about future status. Climate security law must treat these issues as matters of legal dignity, not only adaptation logistics.

3.5 Human rights law

3.5.1 Life, health, water, food, and housing

Climate security is inseparable from human rights. Climate Change threatens the material conditions needed for the enjoyment of rights protected under global and regional human rights systems. The rights to life, health, food, water, housing, culture, property, family life, and self-determination may all be affected by heatwaves, droughts, floods, fires, storms, crop loss, sea-level rise, and disease spread (OHCHR, 2021; ICJ, 2025).

The right to life is especially important. It is not limited to protection against arbitrary killing. Human rights bodies have interpreted it to include positive duties to address reasonably foreseeable threats to life. Climate-related disasters, extreme heat, and severe environmental degradation can fall within that logic where states know the risks and fail to take reasonable measures.

The right to health is also central. Heat stress, air pollution, vector-borne disease, malnutrition, trauma after disasters, and loss of medical infrastructure all affect health. A state’s health duties may require adaptation plans, emergency preparedness, public information, cooling strategies, disease surveillance, and protection of vulnerable groups.

Water, food, and housing show how climate impacts become daily insecurity. Drought can reduce drinking water and irrigation. Floods can contaminate water systems. Crop failure can increase hunger and prices. Storms can destroy housing. These harms are not secondary to security. They are often the pathway through which insecurity emerges.

Human rights obligations require mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation reduces future harm. Adaptation protects people against risks already present or unavoidable. States must also avoid discrimination in climate policy. Measures that protect wealthy communities while leaving marginalised groups exposed may breach human rights standards even if they are presented as climate action.

Remedies matter. Affected persons need access to courts, administrative review, compensation where appropriate, relocation safeguards, and participation in recovery. Without remedies, climate security becomes a policy slogan rather than a legal framework.

3.5.2 A healthy environment

The right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment has become a major bridge between environmental protection and human rights. UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 recognised this right at the global level. The resolution is not a treaty, but it reflects broad international recognition that environmental quality is closely connected to human dignity and the enjoyment of other rights (UNGA, 2022).

The ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion gave this right further legal prominence by recognising its close relationship with other human rights in the climate context (ICJ, 2025). This matters because Climate Change harms the environment in ways that directly affect life, health, food, water, housing, culture, and self-determination.

A healthy environment also helps correct the limits of a narrow security frame. If climate harm is treated only as instability, legal analysis may focus on public order rather than people. If it is treated through the right to a healthy environment, the focus moves to prevention, ecological integrity, participation, and protection of those affected.

The right has special importance for Indigenous peoples and communities with close cultural, spiritual, and economic ties to land, rivers, forests, ice, coasts, and marine ecosystems. Environmental degradation can damage identity, language, food systems, burial practices, and intergenerational knowledge. A climate security framework that ignores these harms is incomplete.

The right also strengthens duties toward future generations. Climate Change involves long-term harm. Decisions made now affect children and future communities. A healthy environment gives legal language to the idea that states must not consume environmental stability in ways that leave later generations with unmanageable insecurity.

3.5.3 Procedural rights

Procedural rights are not administrative formalities. They are the operating system of lawful climate security policy. Access to information, public participation, environmental impact assessment, and access to justice allow affected communities to identify risks, challenge weak decisions, and demand protection before harm becomes irreversible.

Access to information is crucial because climate risk is often technical and unevenly distributed. Communities need data on flood zones, heat risk, water quality, coastal erosion, disaster planning, emissions, and adaptation projects. Without information, people cannot protect themselves or hold authorities accountable.

Participation improves legality and accuracy. Central authorities may not know how water scarcity affects pastoral routes, how coastal erosion affects cultural sites, or how relocation would disrupt family networks. Local knowledge can reveal risks that formal models miss. Excluding affected communities can lead to maladaptation, conflict, and loss of trust.

Access to justice gives procedural rights force. Courts and administrative bodies must be available to review climate-related decisions where rights or legal obligations are at stake. This includes challenges to inadequate mitigation, defective impact assessment, discriminatory adaptation, unsafe relocation, denial of information, or failure to protect against known hazards.

Procedural rights also reduce over-securitisation. Security institutions often prefer closed decision-making. Climate security requires the opposite: transparency, public reasoning, and accountability. A policy that hides risk assessments or excludes affected communities may be efficient on paper but unlawful and unstable in practice.

The legal architecture of climate security depends on this combination: Charter prevention, climate treaty duties, customary prevention and cooperation, law-of-the-sea obligations, and human rights protection. Each regime has limits. Their combined effect is stronger than any single instrument. Climate Change becomes legally manageable when states treat security not as a militarised reaction, but as early, lawful, evidence-based protection of people, territory, institutions, and shared environmental systems.

4. Pathways linking climate stress and insecurity

4.1 Water stress and shared basins

Water is one of the clearest pathways through which Climate Change becomes a security risk. Changes in rainfall, glacier retreat, drought, groundwater depletion, and altered river flow can affect drinking water, irrigation, hydropower, sanitation, food production, and public health. The legal problem is not only scarcity. It is the governance of scarcity under conditions of unequal power, uneven dependence, and competing uses.

International watercourse law provides the main legal structure. The Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses places equitable and reasonable utilisation at the centre of shared water governance. It also requires states to take appropriate measures to prevent significant harm to other watercourse states and to cooperate through notification, consultation, data exchange, and peaceful settlement (United Nations, 1997). These rules become more important as climate variability makes past patterns of water availability less reliable.

A practical example is glacier-fed river systems. Where glaciers retreat, short-term increases in meltwater may be followed by long-term decline. Downstream states may depend on predictable flows for agriculture and drinking water. Upstream states may seek hydropower development or water storage to protect their own populations. The law does not prohibit development. It requires states to assess effects, notify affected states, consult in good faith, and avoid unilateral conduct that produces significant transboundary harm.

Groundwater raises a harder issue. Aquifers are often less visible than rivers, but they are essential during drought. Over-extraction can damage agriculture, drinking water, ecosystems, and future resilience. International law on transboundary aquifers is less developed than river law, but the same core ideas apply: cooperation, reasonable use, prevention of harm, information exchange, and protection of dependent communities (ILC, 2008).

Water stress becomes a security risk when institutions fail to allocate water fairly. Discriminatory distribution can deepen grievance. Corruption can turn drought into a political crisis. Poorly designed dams can generate downstream suspicion. Local water disputes can escalate where armed actors, ethnic tensions, or land conflicts are already present. The legal answer is not securitised control of water users. It is lawful resource governance: transparent allocation, joint bodies, public participation, environmental assessment, and reliable dispute settlement.

Shared basin institutions are especially valuable because they make cooperation routine before a crisis. River commissions, technical committees, early warning systems, drought protocols, and joint monitoring reduce the chance that scarcity will be interpreted as hostile conduct. Climate Change makes these mechanisms less optional. In stressed basins, law must operate before the dispute reaches the level of emergency diplomacy.

4.2 Food systems and price shocks

Food insecurity is a major climate-security pathway because climate shocks affect both production and access. Droughts, floods, heatwaves, pests, soil degradation, and water stress can reduce harvests. Extreme weather can damage roads, ports, storage facilities, and supply chains. Global markets can transmit these shocks through price increases, export restrictions, and import dependency (IPCC, 2022; FAO et al., 2023).

The right to food is the starting point for legal analysis. Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, states must take steps toward the realisation of the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food (United Nations, 1966). The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has clarified that the right to food requires availability, accessibility, adequacy, and sustainability (CESCR, 1999). Climate Change threatens each element.

A harvest failure is not only an economic loss. It can affect nutrition, health, education, income, debt, and social stability. Where food prices rise quickly, poorer households spend a larger share of their income on basic survival. Where public distribution systems are weak or corrupt, food insecurity can produce grievance. Where authorities distribute aid along political, ethnic, or military lines, the climate shock becomes entangled with discrimination and conflict.

Trade rules also matter. Food security is connected to export controls, subsidies, stockpiling, import dependence, and humanitarian exemptions. States may restrict exports during domestic shortages, but such measures can intensify insecurity elsewhere, especially in net food-importing countries. International trade law does not eliminate the right of states to protect domestic needs, but it shows that national food policy can have cross-border security effects.

Humanitarian assistance becomes relevant when climate shocks exceed national capacity. International law recognises that affected states have the primary role in disaster response, but they should not arbitrarily withhold consent to external assistance where populations face serious need (IFRC, 2007; ILC, 2016). Food insecurity in conflict settings is even more sensitive because starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited under international humanitarian law (ICRC, 2005).

The legal duty to avoid discriminatory distribution is essential. Climate-related food assistance, subsidies, insurance, relocation support, and agricultural adaptation must not exclude groups because of ethnicity, gender, migration status, religion, political opinion, disability, or social marginalisation. A food system that protects only politically connected populations can convert climate stress into instability.

Food security also requires adaptation. Climate-resilient agriculture, water-efficient irrigation, seed diversity, social protection, storage systems, market transparency, and early warning are preventive measures. They reduce the chance that climate shocks will become hunger, unrest, or forced movement. The legal framework is not limited to emergency relief. It includes the duty to prepare for foreseeable harm.

4.3 Energy security and transition disputes

Older climate-security reports often focused on water, food, disasters, and migration. A current legal analysis must add energy security and transition disputes. The move away from fossil fuels is legally necessary to limit warming, but it can create new tensions over minerals, infrastructure, investment, subsidies, industrial policy, and access to affordable energy.

Fossil fuel dependence remains a security problem. States that rely heavily on coal, oil, or gas revenues may face fiscal instability as demand changes, regulation tightens, or assets lose value. Communities built around fossil industries may face unemployment and political backlash. Import-dependent states may fear energy shortages during rapid transition. These pressures can shape domestic stability and foreign policy.

At the same time, the energy transition generates new legal disputes. Critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and rare earth elements are essential for batteries, grids, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. Extraction can affect Indigenous lands, water resources, labour rights, biodiversity, and local communities. If transition policy reproduces extractive injustice, it may replace one security risk with another.

Investment law is a central battleground. States may phase out fossil fuel projects, revoke licences, restrict extraction, or reform subsidies to meet climate obligations. Investors may bring claims under investment treaties, alleging expropriation, unfair treatment, or breach of legitimate expectations. The legal question is how to reconcile investor protection with the state’s right and duty to regulate for climate protection, human rights, and environmental security (Tienhaara, 2018; OECD, 2022).

Subsidies also create tension. Fossil fuel subsidies can undermine mitigation and prolong emissions-intensive systems. Clean-energy subsidies can trigger trade disputes where they favour domestic industries or distort competition. Climate security requires a transition that is fast enough to reduce risk, but fair enough to maintain public legitimacy and energy access.

Energy access must not be treated as secondary. Many developing states still need reliable and affordable energy to provide health care, water services, education, transport, digital access, and economic opportunity. A lawful transition must respect development needs while avoiding long-term fossil lock-in. The Paris Agreement’s equity framework is central here because it links ambition with capacity and support (Paris Agreement, 2015).

The concept of a just transition gives legal and policy structure to this problem. It requires attention to workers, affected communities, energy affordability, local participation, social protection, and distributional fairness. Climate security law cannot focus only on ending fossil dependence. It must also reduce transition-related instability.

4.4 Disasters and institutional overload

Storms, floods, fires, heatwaves, droughts, and landslides are governance stress tests. They reveal the capacity of a state to warn, protect, evacuate, coordinate, assist, rebuild, and prevent repetition. Climate Change increases the severity, frequency, or geographic reach of several hazards, making disaster risk reduction a security concern (IPCC, 2022; IPCC, 2023).

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction is not a treaty, but it is an important institutional document. It calls for understanding disaster risk, strengthening disaster governance, investing in resilience, and improving preparedness for effective response and recovery (UNDRR, 2015). These priorities are legally relevant because they help define what reasonable preparation may look like in the face of foreseeable harm.

Institutional overload occurs when repeated or severe disasters exceed the capacity of public systems. Hospitals may fail during heatwaves. Courts, schools, and local administrations may close after floods. Police and emergency services may lack access to affected areas. Water and electricity networks may collapse. When these systems fail, rights protection becomes fragile.

International assistance is part of the legal picture. Affected states have the primary duty to protect persons within their territory, but serious disasters may require external support. The ILC Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters emphasise humanity, human dignity, human rights, cooperation, consent, and the duty not to arbitrarily withhold consent to external assistance (ILC, 2016). These principles are relevant when climate-related disasters threaten life and basic needs.

Vulnerable groups require specific protection. Children, older persons, persons with disabilities, migrants, Indigenous peoples, pregnant women, prisoners, and people in informal settlements often face a higher risk during disasters. A neutral-looking emergency plan may be discriminatory if it does not account for mobility, language, documentation, poverty, disability, or lack of transport.

Humanitarian access can become difficult where disasters overlap with conflict. Armed actors may block roads, divert aid, control water points, or exploit displacement. International humanitarian law, human rights law, and disaster principles must work together in such settings. The legal aim is practical: protect civilians, preserve humanitarian space, and prevent disaster response from becoming another source of conflict.

The duty to prepare is crucial. Once flood zones, fire risk, heat vulnerability, or cyclone exposure are known, states must take reasonable steps before disaster strikes. Early warning, land-use planning, evacuation routes, resilient infrastructure, public health measures, and emergency communication are not optional technical details. They are part of lawful climate-risk governance.

4.5 Migration and displacement

Climate-related movement includes sudden displacement after disasters and slower movement linked to drought, sea-level rise, land degradation, water stress, and livelihood loss. Most movement occurs within states, not across borders. Many people also remain trapped because they lack the resources to move safely. Climate Change affects mobility in uneven ways, and legal categories often fail to match lived reality (IOM, 2019; IPCC, 2022).

4.5.1 Refugee law limits

The term “climate refugee” is politically powerful but legally imprecise. The 1951 Refugee Convention protects persons who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion (United Nations, 1951). Climate harm alone does not automatically meet that definition.

This does not mean that people displaced in climate contexts can never qualify as refugees. They may qualify where climate stress interacts with persecution. For example, a government or armed group may deny disaster aid to a protected group, use famine conditions to punish a community, or target people displaced by environmental collapse because of ethnicity, religion, or political opinion. In such cases, persecution grounds may be present.

The legal mistake is to assume that all climate-displaced persons already fall under refugee law. They do not. That false claim weakens legal credibility and creates unrealistic expectations. The stronger analysis recognises the limits of refugee law while identifying other sources of protection: human rights law, regional instruments, temporary protection, humanitarian visas, planned relocation agreements, and domestic disaster frameworks.

Regional law may provide wider protection in some settings. The OAU Refugee Convention and the Cartagena Declaration include broader concepts linked to events seriously disturbing public order, though application varies by region and state practice (OAU, 1969; Cartagena Declaration, 1984). These instruments may be relevant where climate impacts combine with conflict, violence, or the collapse of public order.

The gap remains serious. Many people displaced by slow-onset climate harm will not qualify for refugee status. Public international law has not yet created a universal treaty category for cross-border climate displacement. This is one of the clearest protection gaps in the climate-security field.

4.5.2 Non-refoulement and human rights

Human rights law offers an important protection route. Non-refoulement prevents a state from removing a person to a place where they face a real risk of serious harm, including threats to life or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This principle is established in refugee law, human rights law, and the prohibition of torture (Goodwin-Gill and McAdam, 2021).

Climate-related conditions can contribute to such risk, especially when combined with conflict, state collapse, extreme poverty, lack of water, food insecurity, or denial of basic services. The legal threshold is high. General hardship is usually not enough. The assessment must consider the person’s actual circumstances, the receiving state’s conditions, and the severity and imminence of the risk.

The Human Rights Committee’s decision in Teitiota v New Zealand is important. The Committee did not find a violation of the facts, but it accepted that climate change and sea-level rise may expose individuals to life-threatening risks that could, in future cases, prevent removal under the right to life (Human Rights Committee, 2020). That reasoning matters because it shows that climate-related non-refoulement is legally possible, even if difficult to establish.

Non-refoulement analysis must be individual and evidence-based. Decision-makers should assess access to water, food, health care, shelter, livelihood, safety, public services, and protection against violence. They should also consider the situation of children, disabled persons, older persons, and persons without family or social support.

Human rights law also applies before movement occurs. States must reduce displacement risks through adaptation, disaster preparedness, land protection, and social support. A narrow focus on cross-border removal misses the larger duty to protect people before they are forced to move.

4.5.3 Planned relocation and dignity

Planned relocation is one of the most sensitive climate-security measures. It may become necessary when communities face repeated flooding, coastal erosion, sea-level rise, landslides, or loss of freshwater. Yet relocation can also destroy culture, livelihoods, land connections, social networks, and political agency if imposed without safeguards.

Relocation must be treated as a legal process, not an engineering project. It requires consultation, participation, consent where required by applicable standards, non-discrimination, access to information, compensation, housing, livelihood restoration, cultural protection, and remedies. For Indigenous peoples, free, prior, and informed consent may be required where relocation affects lands, territories, and resources (United Nations, 2007).

Nationality protection is also vital. Relocation across borders must not create statelessness or legal limbo. States should address residence rights, citizenship pathways, social benefits, family unity, political participation, and recognition of personal status. If relocation is handled through a temporary or precarious status, insecurity will persist.

Land rights must be settled before movement begins. Receiving communities may also have rights and interests. Poorly designed relocation can create new conflicts over land, water, jobs, schools, and services. Legal planning must include both the relocating and host communities.

Compensation should not be limited to the market value of the property. Climate relocation may involve loss of sacred sites, community identity, fishing grounds, burial places, and cultural landscapes. Some losses cannot be fully monetised, but they must still be recognised in the process.

Dignity is the central standard. People facing climate relocation should not be treated as passive victims to be moved for administrative convenience. They are rights-holders. A lawful relocation process preserves voice, identity, family life, livelihood, and political belonging.

4.6 Sea-level rise and state continuity

Sea-level rise creates legal problems that ordinary disaster law cannot fully answer. It may gradually make land uninhabitable, contaminate freshwater, damage infrastructure, and force relocation. For low-lying island states, it may threaten the relationship between people, territory, government, and international personality.

4.6.1 Territory and population

The Montevideo Convention identifies four traditional criteria for statehood: permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states (Montevideo Convention, 1933). Climate Change pressures at least two of these criteria: territory and population. If territory becomes uninhabitable or a population relocates abroad, orthodox doctrine becomes strained.

Yet statehood should not be treated mechanically. A state does not lose legal personality because part of its territory becomes uninhabitable or because some of its population moves abroad. International law favours stability, continuity, and legal order. Loss of statehood would produce severe consequences for nationality, treaty rights, maritime zones, public assets, diplomatic relations, and self-determination.

Continuity is the most defensible approach for climate-threatened states. It protects affected people against legal disappearance and avoids rewarding a global process driven largely by external emissions. It also preserves the capacity to claim climate finance, manage maritime resources, represent citizens, and maintain international relations.

A defined territory need not require perfect habitability of every area. States have existed with disputed borders, occupied territory, exiled governments, and severe territorial disruption. Climate-threatened states present a different problem, but the law’s preference for continuity can adapt. The legal question should be how to preserve personality and rights, not how to declare extinction.

The population also needs flexible analysis. A permanent population may remain legally connected to a state even if part or most of it resides abroad. Diaspora, citizenship, political participation, and institutional continuity may help maintain the legal bond between people and state.

4.6.2 Self-determination and nationality

Self-determination is central when territory becomes uninhabitable. The people of a climate-threatened state are not merely persons needing relocation. They are a political community with a right to preserve identity, institutions, nationality, culture, and collective decision-making. Climate Change must not erase that legal status.

Nationality is a key protection. If a state’s territory becomes uninhabitable, its nationals should not become stateless. International law already seeks to prevent statelessness through treaty and customary principles, but climate-related state continuity requires more precise planning (United Nations, 1954; United Nations, 1961). States should preserve nationality and arrange secure residence, mobility, and rights for affected populations.

Cultural rights also matter. For many island and coastal peoples, territory is not only land. It contains language, ancestry, burial sites, sacred places, food systems, navigation knowledge, and social organisation. Relocation that saves physical life while destroying political and cultural identity is legally inadequate.

Collective decision-making must be protected. Affected populations should decide how to preserve institutions, representation, citizenship, and cultural continuity. External actors should not impose solutions for administrative convenience or migration management.

The strongest legal position treats self-determination as continuing beyond physical displacement. People should not lose their political identity because climate harm makes their homeland unsafe. International cooperation should support that continuity through agreements on residence, citizenship, representation, maritime resources, and cultural preservation.

4.6.3 Maritime zones and fixed baselines

Maritime zones are central to the security of small island states. Exclusive economic zones and continental shelf rights may provide fisheries, seabed resources, revenue, food security, and strategic space. If sea-level rise makes baselines physically unstable, the legal status of those zones becomes a major security concern.

The traditional law of the sea measures maritime zones from baselines along the coast. If those baselines move with physical coastal change, climate-threatened states may lose maritime entitlements even though they did not cause the sea-level rise. That outcome would be legally harsh and politically destabilising.

A growing legal argument supports fixed baselines and stable maritime zones despite physical changes caused by sea-level rise. This approach protects legal certainty, sovereign equality, economic survival, and the continuity of affected states. It also reduces incentives for disputes over shifting coasts and disappearing features.

The International Law Commission has examined sea-level rise in relation to international law, including baselines, maritime zones, statehood, and protection of persons (ILC, 2023). The issue is not fully settled, but state practice increasingly favours stability for climate-vulnerable states.

Fixed maritime zones would not solve all problems. States would still need adaptation, relocation planning, fisheries management, and protection of marine ecosystems. Yet legal stability would preserve a critical economic and political foundation. For small island states, this may be the difference between managed continuity and legal erosion.

4.7 Armed conflict and fragile governance

Climate Change must not be described as a direct and automatic cause of armed conflict. That claim is empirically weak and legally careless. Armed conflict usually emerges through political exclusion, governance failure, inequality, armed organisation, economic incentives, historical grievance, external support, and institutional breakdown. Climate stress can interact with these factors, but it rarely replaces them (Mobjörk et al., 2016; Koubi, 2019).

4.7.1 Climate as an indirect factor

Climate Change functions as an indirect factor when it worsens scarcity, damages livelihoods, increases displacement, weakens state legitimacy, or intensifies competition over land and water. Its effects depend heavily on governance. The same drought may be absorbed through insurance, social support, irrigation, and fair allocation in one state, but may trigger severe instability in another.

This distinction is crucial for legal analysis. If climate change is treated as the cause of conflict, responsibility becomes vague, and policy becomes reactive. If it is treated as a risk factor interacting with governance and rights, the legal response becomes clearer: prevention, adaptation, non-discrimination, resource governance, humanitarian protection, and peacebuilding.

Fragile settings are most exposed. Where institutions are weak, courts are inaccessible, corruption is high, and armed groups are present, climate stress can sharpen existing tensions. Livelihood loss may increase recruitment opportunities for armed groups. Displacement may place pressure on host communities. Resource scarcity may be manipulated by political elites.

The legal response should not militarise climate policy. It should strengthen local governance, rights protection, mediation, disaster preparedness, and access to basic services. Climate-sensitive peacebuilding is more useful than broad claims about climate wars.

4.7.2 Non-state armed groups

Non-state armed groups may exploit climate stress. They may control water points, tax food routes, seize livestock, manipulate access to aid, recruit displaced youth, or use environmental hardship to undermine state legitimacy. In some conflicts, control over natural resources becomes part of territorial control.

International humanitarian law applies where the threshold of armed conflict is met. Parties must protect civilians, respect humanitarian relief, avoid starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, and comply with rules on objects indispensable to civilian survival (ICRC, 2005). Climate stress can make these protections more urgent because water, food, crops, livestock, and medical supplies may already be scarce.

Human rights law remains relevant, especially for the state. Even when armed groups operate, the state must take reasonable measures to protect persons under its jurisdiction, investigate abuses, provide services where possible, and avoid discriminatory conduct. Counter-insurgency measures that block water, food, or humanitarian access may violate human rights and humanitarian standards.

Sanctions can also play a role, but they require caution. Measures against armed groups exploiting natural resources or obstructing aid may be justified in specific cases. Poorly designed sanctions can worsen humanitarian conditions if they restrict relief, fuel, banking, or basic goods. Climate-stressed conflict settings need sanctions with humanitarian exemptions and careful monitoring.

Peacebuilding should integrate climate analysis. Disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration, land restitution, local mediation, and reconstruction may fail if they ignore water scarcity, destroyed livelihoods, disaster exposure, and environmental degradation. A peace agreement that does not address resource governance may leave the roots of local violence intact.

4.7.3 Resource governance and local violence

Many climate-security risks appear first as local resource disputes. Pastoralist–farmer tensions may intensify when drought reduces grazing land and water points. Fisheries disputes may increase as stocks move or decline. Urban water scarcity may generate protests. Land degradation may heighten competition over fertile areas. These disputes are often described as environmental, but their causes are usually institutional and political.

Pastoralist–farmer conflicts illustrate the point. Climate stress may alter migration routes, reduce pasture, or increase livestock mortality. Yet violence often depends on land tenure rules, policing, access to courts, political manipulation, weapons availability, and failure of local mediation. The legal answer must address those governance failures rather than blaming the climate alone.

Fisheries conflicts show the maritime version of the same problem. Warming waters can move fish stocks. Local fishers may enter new areas, clash with other communities, or face enforcement by coastal states. International and domestic law must manage access, conservation, livelihoods, and dispute resolution before competition turns violent.

Urban water scarcity is increasingly important. Cities exposed to drought, heat, informal growth, and poor infrastructure may face rationing, contamination, and protest. Legal duties include non-discriminatory access, transparency, emergency planning, protection of minimum essential levels of water, and remedies for abusive allocation.

Equitable access is the core principle across these examples. Resource governance must be transparent, participatory, and enforceable. Communities need trusted mechanisms to resolve disputes before violence begins. Climate Change increases the urgency of this work because scarcity makes governance failures more dangerous.

The central lesson is straightforward: climate stress becomes insecurity through institutions. Strong institutions can absorb shocks. Weak or abusive institutions can turn the same shocks into grievance, displacement, or violence. Public international law contributes by requiring prevention, cooperation, human rights protection, humanitarian safeguards, and peaceful dispute settlement.

5. Climate Change in the Security Council

5.1 The Council’s legal mandate

The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under the UN Charter. That mandate gives the Council a central role when a situation threatens peace, obstructs peacekeeping, fuels armed violence, or undermines post-conflict stabilisation. Yet this does not make the Council the main legal institution for Climate Change. Climate action remains primarily regulated through the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, international environmental law, human rights law, development cooperation, and domestic implementation (United Nations, 1945; UNFCCC, 1992; Paris Agreement, 2015).

This division of authority matters. The Council can respond to instability, but it cannot replace the climate treaty regime. It can integrate climate risk into conflict prevention, peace operations, and reporting. It can ask the Secretary-General for contextual analysis. It can encourage risk assessment in fragile regions. It can support resilience where climate impacts interact with armed conflict. Those functions are important, but they are not the same as setting global emissions targets, allocating climate finance, or supervising NDCs.

The Council’s strongest legal position appears where climate impacts affect an existing peace and security file. A drought may intensify competition over land and water in a conflict-affected region. Flooding may obstruct peacekeeping logistics. Food insecurity may deepen displacement. Desertification may affect pastoral routes and local violence. In those situations, climate risk is not an isolated environmental issue. It becomes part of the factual setting in which the Council assesses peace operations and conflict prevention.

The opposite position is weaker: treating Climate Change as a general Chapter VII trigger. That approach risks overstating the Council’s competence and weakening the legitimacy of climate governance. Climate change is global, structural, and long-term. The Council is selective, political, and built around peace and security situations. Its tools are not designed to manage the whole climate regime.

A legally sound position is narrower and more useful. The Council should address climate-related risks when they affect mandate performance, civilian protection, humanitarian access, local conflict dynamics, or peacebuilding. It should not convert climate policy into emergency security governance. The Council’s value lies in operational prevention, not institutional capture of the climate agenda.

5.2 The 2011 presidential statement

The 2011 Security Council presidential statement was an important institutional moment because it acknowledged climate-related security implications without transforming Climate Change into a universal Security Council matter. The Council reaffirmed its primary responsibility for international peace and security, stressed conflict prevention, and recognised the responsibilities of the General Assembly and ECOSOC for sustainable development issues, including climate change (UNSC, 2011).

The statement also requested that the Secretary-General include contextual information on possible security implications of climate change in reports where climate impacts are drivers of conflict, challenges to mandate implementation, or threats to peace consolidation. This was legally and politically careful. The Council did not claim general jurisdiction over climate change. It recognised that climate impacts may become relevant in specific peace and security settings.

UNEP identifies the statement as a milestone in the UN’s climate-security practice because it helped create space for integrated analysis across climate, peace, and security work (UNEP, n.d.). Its importance lies less in formal legal innovation and more in institutional permission. It allowed UN actors to treat climate data, environmental stress, resource pressure, and disaster exposure as relevant to peace operations where the facts justified that link.

The statement’s cautious language is one of its strengths. It avoided deterministic claims. It did not say that climate change causes conflict in a simple linear way. It asked for contextual information. That word matters. Climate risk must be assessed with attention to governance, conflict history, resource distribution, poverty, displacement, armed actors, and state capacity.

The 2011 statement also showed the political limits of the Council. Some members supported stronger climate-security language. Others resisted any move that might shift climate governance away from universal forums. The compromise was narrow but durable: climate risk could enter Council practice through evidence-based reporting and mandate-specific analysis.

5.3 Country mandates and field missions

Climate risk now enters Security Council practice mainly through country-specific mandates, not through a broad thematic settlement. This is the most defensible route. It permits the Council to address climate-related risks where they are connected to the facts of a specific conflict environment, while avoiding a claim that the Council should govern climate policy as a whole.

The Lake Chad Basin is a leading example. Resolution 2349 recognised the adverse effects of climate change and ecological changes, among other factors, on regional stability, including water scarcity, drought, desertification, land degradation, and food insecurity (UNSC, 2017). That language did not reduce the Boko Haram crisis to climate. It placed environmental stress inside a wider analysis involving terrorism, governance weakness, displacement, humanitarian need, and development deficits.

Mali offers another example. Resolution 2423 recognised the adverse effects of climate change, ecological changes, and natural disasters on the stability of Mali, including drought, desertification, land degradation, and food insecurity. It also emphasised risk assessment and risk management by the Government of Mali and the United Nations (UNSC, 2018a). This language is operationally useful because it links climate stress to mandate planning without turning the mission into a climate agency.

Darfur, Somalia, South Sudan, and parts of Central Africa have also appeared in Council practice through references to ecological change, natural disasters, food insecurity, water stress, and risk management. The pattern is clear: climate risk becomes relevant where it affects conflict dynamics, civilian protection, humanitarian conditions, or stabilisation. The Council is not setting climate law; it is asking field missions and UN actors not to ignore climate stress when assessing insecurity.

Field missions can use climate analysis in practical ways. They may support local mediation over land and water. They may include climate and environmental risk in early warning. They may coordinate with humanitarian and development actors. They may advise national authorities on conflict-sensitive resource governance. They may identify how floods, droughts, or livelihood collapse affect displacement and recruitment by armed groups.

This approach has one major advantage: it is evidence-based. A broad thematic resolution would carry symbolic value, but country mandates can be tied to concrete conditions. That makes the legal and operational case stronger. Climate risk should appear in Council mandates when it helps explain risks to peace, civilians, or mandate implementation. It should not appear as boilerplate language detached from field realities.

5.4 The politics of thematic deadlock

The Security Council remains divided because climate security sits at the intersection of law, power, development, and institutional competence. Some states see climate security as essential prevention. For them, ignoring climate stress in conflict-affected regions is legally and operationally irresponsible. They argue that the Council cannot protect civilians, support peacekeeping, or prevent conflict relapse if it refuses to consider drought, water scarcity, food insecurity, and disaster displacement.

Other states resist a broad Council role. Their concerns are not all tactical. Some fear mandate expansion. Some argue that the Council is not representative enough to govern climate questions. Some worry that a security frame could legitimise interference in domestic development choices. Others fear that climate finance, adaptation, and mitigation might be pulled away from universal treaty bodies and into a forum dominated by permanent members.

The failed 2021 draft thematic resolution illustrates this divide. The draft, led by Ireland and Niger, sought to integrate climate-related security risk more systematically into Council work. It had broad support but failed after a veto by Russia; India also voted against it, and China abstained (UNSC, 2021). The vote showed that climate security has majority support across the UN membership, but not consensus among permanent members.

The disagreement is partly about institutional ownership. Supporters want the Council to recognise that climate risk already affects peace and security. Opponents often argue that climate change should remain under the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and development institutions. The deeper issue is trust: many states do not want climate vulnerability to become a basis for external security management.

This deadlock does not mean the Council has no role. It means the most viable path is incremental and mandate-specific. Climate security language can be incorporated into country files, Secretary-General reports, peacebuilding strategies, and mission planning where facts support it. That approach may be less dramatic than a thematic resolution, but it is more likely to survive political resistance.

The lesson is practical. The Council should not try to become the climate regime. It should improve its own work by using climate evidence where climate stress affects peace and security tasks. That narrower position is legally stronger and politically more realistic.

5.5 Limits of coercive climate security

Coercive tools are generally poor instruments for reducing climate risk. Sanctions, military deployments, and enforcement measures may be necessary in some peace and security situations, but they do not lower emissions, restore rainfall, rebuild water systems, finance adaptation, or protect livelihoods by themselves. Treating Climate Change primarily through coercion misunderstands the nature of the problem.

Sanctions may be relevant where armed groups exploit natural resources, obstruct humanitarian assistance, or finance violence through environmental crime. Yet sanctions can also worsen humanitarian conditions if they restrict access to fuel, banking, transport, food, equipment, or relief operations. Climate-stressed communities are often already fragile. Poorly designed coercive measures may deepen harm.

Military deployments face similar limits. Armed forces may support disaster response, logistics, evacuation, engineering, or protection of humanitarian corridors. Those roles can be useful. They are not climate governance. Long-term resilience depends on civilian institutions: water management, health systems, housing, agriculture, courts, local mediation, social protection, and public infrastructure.

The more serious risk is emergency exceptionalism. Climate security can become a justification for expanded surveillance, border militarisation, emergency powers, exclusion of migrants, and reduced public participation. That approach reverses the legal logic of climate protection. It treats affected populations as threats rather than rights-holders.

A lawful climate-security model should be preventive, civilian, and evidence-based. It should reduce foreseeable harm through adaptation, mitigation, early warning, disaster preparedness, human rights protection, fair resource governance, and peaceful dispute settlement. The Council can support that model when climate stress affects peace operations or conflict prevention. It should avoid language or measures that militarise climate vulnerability.

The core legal point is restraint. The Security Council may address climate-related security risks, but it should do so only where there is a concrete peace and security connection. The broader response belongs to climate law, environmental law, human rights law, development cooperation, and domestic governance.

6. Responsibility and remedies

6.1 Wrongful omission

State responsibility in climate matters can arise through omission as well as action. A state may breach international law not only by approving harmful conduct, but by failing to regulate emissions, failing to adopt adequate climate measures, failing to conduct environmental assessment, or failing to use available capacity to reduce foreseeable harm. This is one of the most important implications of the ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion (ICJ, 2025).

The legal structure is familiar. Under the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, an internationally wrongful act exists when conduct attributable to a state breaches an international obligation (ILC, 2001). Conduct includes acts and omissions. In climate law, omission is critical because many harms result not only from what states do, but from what they permit, subsidise, ignore, or fail to control.

A state that knows climate risks are severe and continues with weak regulation may face scrutiny under due diligence. The duty is not to achieve perfect climate safety. It is to adopt reasonable, timely, and effective measures proportionate to the risk, scientific knowledge, and capacity of the state. The more serious and foreseeable the harm, the more demanding the standard.

Wrongful omission may appear in several forms. A state may submit an NDC that does not reflect progression or the highest possible ambition. It may fail to implement domestic mitigation measures. It may approve projects without assessing climate impacts. It may neglect adaptation duties despite known risks to life, water, food, or housing. It may fail to regulate private actors whose activities contribute significantly to climate harm.

This is not a theory of automatic liability for every climate impact. Responsibility still requires identification of the relevant obligation, breach, attribution, causation, where required, and legal consequences. Yet the legal space for inaction has narrowed. Climate risk is no longer speculative. Foreseeability changes the legal assessment.

6.2 Fossil fuel licensing and subsidies

Fossil fuel licensing and subsidies are legally sensitive because they connect state conduct with future emissions. The ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion made clear that failure to take appropriate action in relation to fossil fuel production, consumption, licensing, and subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act where applicable obligations are breached (ICJ, 2025). That statement is significant because it moves the legal inquiry beyond national targets and into concrete policy choices.

Licensing matters because states control access to exploration, extraction, infrastructure, and production. A government that authorises long-term fossil fuel expansion while claiming climate ambition creates a legal inconsistency that may be relevant to due diligence. The issue is not the mere existence of fossil fuels. It is whether state approval is compatible with obligations to prevent significant harm, cooperate, protect human rights, and pursue credible mitigation.

Subsidies raise a similar problem. Public financial support for fossil fuel production or consumption may prolong emissions-intensive systems and delay transition. Subsidies may also consume fiscal resources that could support adaptation, renewable energy, public transport, health resilience, or disaster preparedness. Where subsidies undermine climate obligations, they become more than economic policy.

This does not mean every fossil fuel measure is automatically unlawful. Legal analysis must consider the specific obligation, the state’s circumstances, energy access needs, transition planning, and available alternatives. Developing states with limited energy access may face different constraints than high-income states with mature infrastructure and greater historical responsibility.

Still, the direction of legal scrutiny is clear. States cannot rely on formal climate commitments while maintaining policies that plainly expand high-emission dependence without justification, assessment, or transition planning. Due diligence requires coherence between climate obligations and domestic regulatory choices.

Fossil fuel policy also has security effects. Continued dependence increases exposure to price shocks, geopolitical pressure, stranded assets, and delayed adaptation. A disorderly transition can produce social unrest. A lawful transition must be ambitious, planned, fair, and supported by public participation.

6.3 Causation and evidentiary proof

Causation is the hardest part of climate responsibility. Many states and private actors contribute to global emissions over long periods. Climate harm is cumulative and often mediated by ecological, economic, and social systems. A drought, flood, heatwave, or displacement crisis may have several causes. Legal proof must handle this complexity without collapsing into either denial or overstatement.

A distinction is necessary. Aggregate responsibility concerns the collective contribution of states and private actors to global warming. Individual state breach concerns whether a particular state failed to comply with a specific international obligation. Proportional contribution concerns the scale of a state’s role in causing or increasing harm. Evidentiary proof of loss concerns the connection between breach and specific damage.

These questions do not always require the same level of proof. Preventive obligations may be triggered by a foreseeable serious risk. Compensation usually requires a closer connection between breach and injury. A court may be willing to recognise a duty to strengthen mitigation or conduct an assessment even where quantifying compensation remains difficult.

Climate attribution science has improved, especially for heatwaves and certain extreme events. It can show how anthropogenic emissions increased the probability or intensity of particular events. That evidence is legally important, but it does not answer all questions. A tribunal must still determine the applicable law, standard of proof, relevance of multiple contributors, and appropriate remedy.

There is also a difference between factual causation and legal causation. A state’s emissions may physically contribute to global warming, but legal responsibility depends on breach of obligation. If a state fails to regulate in breach of due diligence, legal causation may be assessed through contribution to risk, material increase in harm, or failure to prevent foreseeable damage, depending on the forum and claim.

Security-related harms create additional difficulty. If climate stress contributes to armed recruitment, displacement, or local violence, the causal chain may include governance failure, armed group strategy, discrimination, poverty, land tenure, and external funding. Climate Change may be a relevant factor without being the sole or dominant cause. Legal argument must specify the pathway and the obligation breached.

Evidence will decide the credibility of claims. Strong claims will use emissions data, regulatory records, impact assessments, attribution studies, expert testimony, vulnerability mapping, and proof of feasible alternatives. Weak claims will rely on broad statements that climate change caused harm without connecting state conduct to a legal breach.

6.4 Cessation and non-repetition

If a state is responsible for a continuing breach, the first legal consequence is cessation. Under the law of state responsibility, a state must cease the wrongful conduct if it is continuing and offer assurances and guarantees of non-repetition where circumstances require them (ILC, 2001). In climate matters, this may require changes in policy, regulation, and implementation.

Cessation could involve strengthening mitigation measures, revising an inadequate NDC, ending unlawful regulatory omissions, withdrawing support for high-emission activities, or adopting credible implementation laws. If a breach concerns failure to assess environmental effects, cessation may require a proper assessment before continuing the activity. If a breach concerns failure to regulate private actors, cessation may require effective supervision and enforcement.

Non-repetition is especially important because climate harm is cumulative. A single policy correction may not be enough if the underlying regulatory system continues to produce foreseeable harm. Guarantees of non-repetition may require monitoring, independent review, transparent reporting, judicial oversight, public participation, and legislative reform.

These remedies are attractive because they focus on preventing future harm rather than only compensating past loss. Climate security depends on forward-looking correction. Stopping the wrongful conduct may reduce future displacement, disaster exposure, food insecurity, and marine harm.

Cessation also avoids some evidentiary difficulties attached to monetary compensation. A tribunal may find that a state must improve its conduct even if precise quantification of past damage remains complex. This makes cessation and non-repetition central to climate litigation and advisory practice.

The remedy must be legally specific. It is not enough to say that a state must “do more”. The required action should be linked to the breached obligation: stronger regulation, updated targets, environmental assessment, withdrawal of unlawful subsidy, adaptation planning, or protection of affected rights. Precision gives remedies practical force.

6.5 Reparation and compensation

Reparation is legally possible for climate harm where the conditions of state responsibility are satisfied. The law of state responsibility recognises restitution, compensation, and satisfaction as forms of reparation (ILC, 2001). The ICJ’s 2025 Advisory Opinion confirmed that legal consequences, including reparation, may arise where a state breaches its climate-related obligations and the required conditions are met (ICJ, 2025).

Compensation is the most difficult form. Climate harm may include destroyed homes, lost crops, damaged infrastructure, health costs, coastal erosion, loss of freshwater, disaster response expenses, and loss of livelihoods. Some losses can be quantified. Others, such as cultural loss, loss of territory, ecosystem damage, or harm to self-determination, resist simple valuation.

The causal problem remains serious. An injured state or claimant must connect breach and damage according to the applicable legal standard. The existence of climate harm alone does not prove that a particular state owes compensation. A legally credible claim must identify the obligation breached, the responsible conduct, the injury, and the causal link.

This does not make compensation irrelevant. It means the strongest compensation claims may be those with clear evidence, identifiable conduct, and specific harm. Examples may include failure to conduct required environmental assessment, transboundary pollution linked to identifiable activities, or regulatory omissions tied to foreseeable and measurable damage.

Restitution will often be impossible in climate cases. Lost territory, extinct species, destroyed coral reefs, and irreversible ecosystem damage cannot simply be restored. That makes compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition more important. Yet the impossibility of full repair also strengthens the case for prevention.

Satisfaction may matter where legal recognition itself has value. A finding that a state breached international obligations can support diplomatic pressure, domestic reform, institutional accountability, and future claims. In climate justice terms, recognition of wrongfulness may be important even when full monetary repair is unavailable.

6.6 Loss and damage

Loss and damage finance must be distinguished from legal responsibility. Loss and damage mechanisms provide support for harms associated with climate impacts that cannot be fully avoided through mitigation or adaptation. They may cover recovery, reconstruction, displacement, ecosystem loss, and other severe impacts. Their function is practical and solidaristic, not automatically adjudicative.

This distinction is important. Climate finance does not necessarily mean compensation for an internationally wrongful act. A payment through a loss and damage mechanism may be based on cooperation, equity, vulnerability, political agreement, or institutional design. Legal compensation requires breach, attribution, causation, and injury under the law of responsibility.

Collapsing the two concepts creates confusion. If loss and damage are described only as legal compensation, states may resist support because they fear liability. If it is described only as charity, affected states and communities may be denied recognition of injustice and responsibility. The better approach keeps both tracks open: cooperative finance for urgent needs, and legal responsibility where the conditions are satisfied.

Loss and damage have clear security relevance. After repeated disasters, a state may lack resources to rebuild schools, hospitals, roads, ports, water systems, and housing. Communities may face displacement, debt, and social fragmentation. Without support, climate impacts can weaken institutions and deepen instability.

The design of loss and damage funding matters. Support should be accessible, predictable, grant-based where appropriate, and responsive to vulnerable communities. Complex procedures and debt-creating instruments can weaken the very resilience they claim to support. Climate security requires finance that reaches affected populations before harm becomes entrenched.

Loss and damage also include non-economic loss. Culture, territory, biodiversity, community cohesion, sacred sites, and identity may be damaged by climate impacts. These harms are central for small island states, Indigenous peoples, and local communities. A narrow accounting model cannot capture them fully, but legal and institutional processes should recognise them.

6.7 Corporate conduct and state regulation

Public international law generally binds states directly. Corporations are not ordinary subjects of the same primary obligations as states under general international law. Yet corporate conduct is central to climate harm because private actors extract fossil fuels, generate power, finance high-emission projects, clear forests, operate transport systems, and shape technology markets.

The state remains the main entry point. States may breach due diligence duties when they fail to regulate private actors under their jurisdiction or control. This includes licensing, environmental assessment, emissions standards, financial disclosure, corporate reporting, land-use control, deforestation enforcement, and access to remedies. A state cannot evade international responsibility by outsourcing emissions-intensive activity to private entities.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are relevant even though they are not a treaty. They affirm the state duty to protect against human rights abuse by third parties, including business enterprises, and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights (Human Rights Council, 2011). In climate contexts, this framework supports stronger regulation of corporate activities that foreseeably threaten life, health, housing, water, food, culture, and livelihood.

Corporate climate litigation is expanding in domestic courts, but its international law significance lies mainly in state obligations. Domestic courts may use international human rights law, environmental law, tort law, consumer law, company law, or administrative law to assess corporate conduct. International obligations can influence interpretation, regulatory duties, and standards of care.

Supply chains complicate the analysis. A corporation may operate across several jurisdictions. Emissions may be produced through subsidiaries, contractors, financed projects, or exported fuels. States must address these realities through disclosure rules, due diligence legislation, parent-company responsibility, and cooperation with other states.

There is also a remedial issue. Communities harmed by climate-related corporate conduct often face barriers to justice: cost, evidence, jurisdiction, corporate structure, limitation periods, and unequal access to experts. State duties to provide effective remedies require more than formal access to courts. They require procedures capable of handling complex environmental harm.

Climate security cannot be credible if it ignores private power. States set the legal conditions under which high-emission activities continue or decline. Effective regulation of corporate conduct is one of the main ways public international law can move Climate Change analysis from abstract responsibility to concrete prevention.

7. Climate security before courts and tribunals

7.1 The ICJ Advisory Opinion

The 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion is the central current authority on Climate Change obligations in public international law. Its importance lies in structure as much as outcome. The Court did not confine climate obligations to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It treated climate protection as a question arising across several bodies of law: climate treaties, customary prevention, cooperation, human rights, the law of the sea, and state responsibility (ICJ, 2025).

That approach matters because climate harm rarely fits one legal box. A single climate-related event may affect health, housing, water, food, territory, marine ecosystems, displacement, and public infrastructure. The ICJ’s method reflects that reality. It confirms that states cannot avoid responsibility by treating climate change as a policy field outside ordinary legal doctrine.

The opinion also strengthens the role of due diligence. State obligations are not satisfied by formal participation in treaty processes alone. A state must act with the care required by the seriousness of the risk, its capacity, available science, and the need to prevent significant harm. The Court’s reasoning gives legal weight to mitigation, adaptation, regulation, cooperation, and assessment.

The Court’s treatment of omissions is especially important. International responsibility may arise where a state fails to regulate, fails to adopt adequate measures, fails to conduct an environmental assessment, or fails to address foreseeable harm despite having the capacity to act. Climate-related wrongfulness is not limited to direct emissions by public bodies. It can also arise through defective governance (ICJ, 2025).

For climate security, the opinion gives lawyers a stronger doctrinal foundation. It links foreseeable climate harm with obligations that protect people, territory, marine systems, and international cooperation. It also rejects a purely voluntary model of climate governance. The Paris Agreement contains flexibility, but flexibility is not legal emptiness.

The opinion does not solve every problem. It does not eliminate evidentiary difficulties, quantify compensation for particular losses, or create a global enforcement authority. Its value is different. It clarifies the legal grammar through which climate insecurity can be argued: obligation, breach, due diligence, cooperation, causation, injury, and reparation.

7.2 The ITLOS Advisory Opinion

The 2024 ITLOS Advisory Opinion is the leading law-of-the-sea authority on climate change. Its central contribution is clear: anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can fall within the UNCLOS definition of pollution of the marine environment where they result, or are likely to result, in deleterious effects on marine life, human health, marine activities, seawater quality, or amenities (ITLOS, 2024).

This interpretation is doctrinally significant because UNCLOS does not expressly mention greenhouse gases, ocean warming, acidification, or sea-level rise. ITLOS reads the Convention dynamically, using current scientific knowledge to apply existing treaty language to contemporary marine harm. That method matters for climate litigation more broadly. Older treaties may still address new forms of harm if their terms and objects support that interpretation.

The opinion also connects climate change with the general duty to protect and preserve the marine environment under Article 192 of UNCLOS. Articles 194 and related provisions require states to take measures to prevent, reduce, and control marine pollution. For ITLOS, these duties apply to greenhouse gas emissions affecting the oceans (ITLOS, 2024).

This has direct security relevance. Ocean warming, acidification, and sea-level rise affect fisheries, coral reefs, ports, coastlines, marine biodiversity, offshore infrastructure, and the economic survival of coastal and island states. For many small island developing states, marine protection is not a specialist environmental issue. It is tied to food security, revenue, territorial stability, and cultural continuity.

ITLOS also described the due diligence standard as stringent in light of the seriousness of climate risks, while recognising that capacity and available means still matter. The result is a balanced but demanding test. States are not held to identical technical capacities, but all must take serious and effective measures within their means.

The opinion is also important for cooperation. Climate-related marine harm cannot be addressed by one state acting alone. Scientific research, monitoring, data exchange, regional coordination, and assistance to vulnerable states become practical components of legal compliance. Climate security at sea depends on those cooperative duties.

7.3 The Inter-American Court opinion

Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is a major regional authority on the climate emergency and human rights. Its importance lies in translating climate harm into concrete duties under the American Convention and related inter-American standards. It treats environmental degradation and climate change as threats to the effective enjoyment of rights, not as distant policy concerns (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2025).

The opinion is especially relevant because it connects substantive and procedural obligations. Climate impacts may threaten life, health, personal integrity, property, family life, children’s rights, Indigenous rights, access to water, food, housing, and cultural survival. At the same time, lawful climate governance requires information, participation, environmental assessment, access to justice, and protection for environmental defenders.

This regional approach is valuable for climate security because it places vulnerable groups at the centre. Indigenous peoples, children, women, older persons, persons with disabilities, displaced communities, and people living in poverty may face distinct risks. A general climate policy can be legally defective if it ignores those differentiated harms.

The Inter-American Court’s reasoning also strengthens the link between climate protection and democratic accountability. Affected communities must be able to know the risks, participate in decisions, challenge inadequate measures, and obtain remedies. That matters in security contexts because closed decision-making often produces mistrust, poor adaptation, and conflict.

The opinion also helps prevent over-securitisation. It frames climate harm through rights, dignity, and state duties rather than through emergency control. This is important in the Americas, where environmental degradation, extractive projects, Indigenous land conflicts, and violence against environmental defenders often overlap.

For public international law, OC-32/25 confirms a wider trend. Climate litigation is no longer confined to emissions targets. It now includes protection of persons, procedural fairness, environmental defenders, vulnerable communities, and remedies for foreseeable harm.

7.4 Domestic courts and international law

Domestic courts are where many climate obligations become operational. International opinions clarify principles, but national judges often decide whether a ministry must revise a target, disclose risk, conduct an assessment, protect a community, or correct an unlawful omission. Domestic litigation turns abstract international duties into concrete institutional pressure.

Several cases show the pattern. In Urgenda, the Dutch courts required the Netherlands to strengthen emissions reductions, relying partly on human rights duties to protect life and private and family life (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 2019). In Neubauer, the German Federal Constitutional Court held that insufficient climate action could shift excessive burdens onto future generations, linking climate policy with constitutional rights and intertemporal freedom (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2021). In KlimaSeniorinnen, the European Court of Human Rights found that Switzerland had failed to comply with positive obligations linked to climate protection under Article 8 of the European Convention (ECtHR, 2024).

These cases do not apply one identical formula. Some rely on constitutional rights. Others use administrative law, statutory duties, tort principles, environmental legislation, or treaty-consistent interpretation. Their common feature is judicial review of state conduct against known climate risk.

Domestic courts also handle evidence in ways international courts often cannot. They can review internal government records, national emissions budgets, agency decisions, planning documents, expert reports, impact assessments, and implementation failures. This makes them essential for accountability.

International law enters domestic litigation through several channels. Courts may interpret constitutional rights consistently with human rights treaties. They may use the Paris Agreement to assess the reasonableness of national targets. They may rely on IPCC findings to evaluate risk. They may apply domestic statutes drafted to implement international obligations.

The limits are real. Courts may hesitate to interfere with budgetary policy, energy planning, foreign affairs, or legislative choices. Some claims fail because plaintiffs cannot establish standing, causation, justiciability, or a specific legal duty. Yet failure in some cases does not negate the wider trend. Climate litigation has become a normal part of governance accountability.

For climate security, domestic litigation is important because many security-relevant failures are local: unsafe housing in flood zones, inadequate heat planning, weak disaster response, defective environmental assessment, unfair relocation, or discriminatory water allocation. International law supplies the framework; domestic procedure often supplies the remedy.

7.5 Evidence, experts, and remedies

Climate litigation depends heavily on evidence. Courts need more than broad statements about climate danger. They need emissions data, climate models, attribution science, vulnerability assessments, administrative records, expert testimony, risk maps, feasibility studies, and proof of available alternatives. The stronger the evidence, the harder it becomes for states to defend delay as discretion.

Attribution science is particularly important. It can show how anthropogenic climate change increased the probability or severity of particular events, especially heatwaves and some forms of extreme precipitation. It can also support broader claims about sea-level rise, glacier retreat, ocean warming, and ecosystem damage. Courts must still translate that science into legal causation, but the evidentiary base is stronger than it was a decade ago.

Administrative records are often decisive. A government may know that a coastal region is exposed, that a dam threatens downstream flows, that a heat plan is inadequate, or that a fossil fuel project conflicts with national climate targets. Internal knowledge can establish foreseeability. It can also expose inconsistency between public commitments and actual decisions.

Remedy design is the hard part. Courts may order policy revision, stronger targets, improved risk assessment, environmental impact assessment, disclosure, protection measures, or reconsideration of licences. They may avoid prescribing a detailed climate policy, but still require the state to adopt measures consistent with legal duties.

In climate-security cases, remedies should be precise and institutionally workable. A court should identify the legal defect: inadequate assessment, failure to protect a right, failure to regulate, discriminatory adaptation, or breach of statutory duty. Then the remedy should correct that defect without pretending that a court can manage the entire climate transition.

Expert evidence must also be accessible to affected communities. If litigation becomes too expensive or technical, the people most harmed by climate insecurity may be excluded. Legal systems need procedures that allow collective claims, public interest litigation, independent experts, disclosure, and protective measures for vulnerable claimants.

The future of climate litigation will depend on credibility. Strong cases will connect facts, science, duty, breach, and remedy with discipline. Weak cases will overclaim. Courts and tribunals are becoming more receptive to climate arguments, but they still require legal precision.

8. Operational prevention and peacebuilding

8.1 Climate-sensitive peacebuilding

Peacebuilding cannot ignore climate risk where land, water, agriculture, displacement, disaster exposure, or livelihoods affect conflict dynamics. A peace process that addresses armed actors but ignores resource stress may leave local grievances unresolved. Climate-sensitive peacebuilding asks how environmental change affects insecurity and how peacebuilding can reduce that risk without creating new harm.

UNEP’s work in North Darfur and Nepal provides useful examples. In those settings, climate adaptation was combined with water infrastructure, climate-smart livelihoods, dialogue, local conflict resolution, and natural resource governance (UNEP, n.d.). The point is not that climate projects automatically produce peace. The point is that adaptation can support peace when it is linked to inclusive governance and local trust.

Climate-sensitive peacebuilding is practical. In a drought-prone region, peacebuilders may need to support agreements over grazing routes, water points, irrigation, and seasonal migration. In a flood-prone area, they may need to address relocation, land access, drainage, and reconstruction. In coastal areas, they may need to anticipate livelihood loss in fisheries and informal settlements.

Legal obligations support this work. Human rights law requires non-discrimination, participation, protection of life and basic needs, and access to remedies. Environmental law requires assessment and prevention. The UN Charter supports peaceful settlement and cooperation. Climate-sensitive peacebuilding is not a separate legal regime, but it gives operational effect to existing duties.

The main risk is superficial integration. Adding a climate paragraph to a peacebuilding plan is not enough. Peacebuilding actors need local environmental data, conflict analysis, gender analysis, land tenure knowledge, and consultation with affected communities. Climate risk must shape programming, not merely appear in policy language.

8.2 Conflict-sensitive adaptation

Adaptation can reduce insecurity, but it can also create conflict if badly designed. Projects that redistribute land, water, infrastructure, finance, or services may benefit some groups and harm others. A dam, irrigation scheme, coastal barrier, relocation project, or drought-resilience programme can become a source of grievance where participation is weak or benefits are unequal.

Conflict-sensitive adaptation requires analysis before programming begins. Planners must ask who controls land, who uses water, who is excluded, who may lose access, which groups distrust authorities, and how armed actors may exploit the project. Technical climate adaptation without political analysis is a predictable source of failure.

Water projects are a common example. A new borehole may reduce scarcity for one community while attracting livestock pressure, changing migration routes, or creating conflict over maintenance. A flood defence may protect a commercial district while pushing water toward poorer settlements. A relocation site may appear safe on a map, but create disputes with host communities.

Legal safeguards are available. Environmental and social impact assessment, consultation, free, prior, and informed consent where applicable, non-discrimination, transparent benefit-sharing, grievance mechanisms, and access to justice all reduce conflict risk. These safeguards are not delays. They are conditions for lawful and durable adaptation.

Conflict-sensitive adaptation also requires attention to timing. Emergency projects may be necessary after disasters, but rushed decisions can create long-term injustice. Temporary shelters can become permanent settlements. Compensation promises can disappear. Land disputes can harden. Legal design must anticipate these risks.

The aim is not to avoid adaptation because it is politically difficult. The aim is to make adaptation legitimate. A project that reduces physical climate risk while creating social conflict has failed as a climate security policy.

8.3 Early warning and risk assessment

Early warning is a core tool of climate security. It allows states and international organisations to identify risk before it becomes displacement, violence, famine, or institutional collapse. Good warning systems integrate climate data with conflict analysis, human rights information, food security indicators, migration patterns, and local knowledge.

The UN Climate Security Mechanism supports this kind of integrated analysis. It assists UN actors with climate-security advice, risk assessment, peacebuilding project design, and incorporation of climate risks into planning frameworks (UN Climate Security Mechanism, 2022). Its value lies in bridging institutional gaps between environmental experts, political officers, peacebuilders, and development actors.

Risk assessment should be specific. It should not say only that a country is vulnerable to Climate Change. It should identify where drought affects pastoral routes, where floods threaten displacement, where food prices may intensify unrest, where armed groups control resource corridors, and where public institutions lack response capacity. General risk language produces a general policy. Specific risk analysis supports prevention.

Early warning must also be linked to early action. Many institutions already know where risks are rising. The failure is often response lack of funds, fragmented mandates, political hesitation, or limited access. A warning system without authority, finance, or operational pathways becomes a reporting exercise.

Legal relevance is clear. Foreseeability is strengthened when institutions receive credible warnings and fail to act. If a state or international organisation knows that a climate-related hazard threatens life, food, water, or displacement, the reasonableness of its response can be assessed against that knowledge.

Local communities should not be treated only as data sources. They must receive warnings in usable form and participate in response planning. A technically accurate warning that does not reach people in time, in their language, or through trusted channels has limited protective value.

8.4 Financing fragile settings

Fragile and conflict-affected settings often face the sharpest climate-security risks and the weakest access to climate finance. This is a major governance failure. States and communities most exposed to climate harm may lack the institutions, data systems, accreditation capacity, and administrative stability needed to access complex funding mechanisms (UNEP, 2022; OECD, 2023).

The result is perverse. Places where adaptation is most urgent may receive less support because they are institutionally fragile. Yet underfunded adaptation increases disaster harm, displacement pressure, local resource competition, and dependence on humanitarian aid. Climate finance then becomes part of prevention, not a charitable supplement.

Legal principles support stronger assistance. The UNFCCC and Paris Agreement recognise finance, technology transfer, capacity-building, and cooperation. Human rights law reinforces the need to protect basic interests such as life, water, food, health, and housing. Where international cooperation is necessary to prevent severe harm, support obligations become security-relevant (UNFCCC, 1992; Paris Agreement, 2015).

Access matters as much as volume. Finance that is slow, loan-heavy, administratively complex, or inaccessible to local actors may not reduce risk. Fragile settings often need grants, technical assistance, simplified procedures, risk-tolerant funding, and long-term institutional support. Short project cycles rarely match climate-security needs.

Peacebuilding finance and climate finance should be better aligned, but not merged carelessly. Climate funds must not become security instruments controlled by military priorities. Peacebuilding funds must not treat climate as decorative language. The proper model is coordinated civilian prevention: adaptation, livelihoods, dispute resolution, local governance, and rights protection.

Financing should also be accountable. Funds can produce conflict if captured by elites, distributed unfairly, or used for projects that displace communities. Transparency, participation, monitoring, anti-corruption measures, and grievance mechanisms are essential.

8.5 Gender and local participation

Climate-security harm is not evenly distributed. Women, Indigenous peoples, children, older persons, persons with disabilities, displaced persons, and marginalised communities often face specific risks. These risks arise through unequal access to land, income, documentation, health care, political voice, mobility, safety, and public services (UN Women, UNEP, UNDP and DPPA, 2020).

Gender analysis is not optional. In some settings, women are responsible for water, food production, caregiving, and household survival, while lacking land rights or access to decision-making. Climate stress can increase unpaid labour, exposure to violence, early marriage, trafficking, or exclusion from compensation. A climate-security policy that ignores these patterns will misread the risk.

Indigenous peoples face distinct harms because climate impacts can damage land, forests, rivers, ice, coasts, species, and cultural practices. Their participation must be meaningful, and free, prior, and informed consent may be required where projects affect lands, territories, or resources. Climate adaptation imposed without Indigenous participation can become another form of dispossession.

Children and future generations are also central. Climate harm affects health, education, nutrition, housing, and future opportunity. Courts increasingly recognise that delayed climate action shifts burdens onto younger people. This intergenerational dimension strengthens the case for early prevention.

Persons with disabilities and older persons are often at greater risk during disasters. Evacuation plans, warnings, shelters, transport, and medical continuity must be designed with accessibility in mind. A formally neutral disaster plan may fail if it assumes that everyone can hear warnings, move quickly, access transport, or communicate with authorities.

Local participation is a legal safeguard. It improves information, legitimacy, and accountability. Affected communities know where floodwaters rise, which wells fail first, which roads become impassable, and which groups are excluded from aid. Their knowledge is not anecdotal decoration. It is operational evidence.

The strongest climate-security policies are built with the people most exposed to harm. Participation reduces the risk of maladaptation, discriminatory distribution, and social conflict. It also keeps climate security anchored in rights rather than control.

9. Case studies as legal tests

9.1 The Sahel and Lake Chad

The Sahel and Lake Chad region is a useful test case because it shows how Climate Change interacts with insecurity without explaining conflict by itself. The region faces rainfall variability, desertification, land degradation, water stress, food insecurity, displacement, weak public services, and armed violence. Yet the violence cannot be reduced to climate conditions. Boko Haram, Islamic State-linked groups, governance failures, poverty, cross-border criminal networks, military abuses, and limited state presence are all part of the security picture (Mobjörk et al., 2016; UNSC, 2017).

Lake Chad illustrates the legal complexity. The lake has been affected by climatic variation, water use, demographic pressure, and governance challenges. Communities depend on fishing, farming, livestock, and trade. When livelihoods weaken, people may move, compete over land and water, or become more exposed to armed groups. Climate stress increases pressure, but political and institutional conditions determine how that pressure is handled.

The Security Council’s treatment of the Lake Chad Basin is careful. Resolution 2349 recognised the adverse effects of climate change and ecological change, including water scarcity, drought, desertification, land degradation, and food insecurity, while placing them alongside terrorism, humanitarian crisis, displacement, and governance concerns (UNSC, 2017). This is the right legal model: climate risk is relevant, but not treated as the sole cause.

The applicable legal framework combines human rights, humanitarian assistance, regional cooperation, and conflict-sensitive governance. States must protect rights to life, food, water, health, housing, and security without discrimination. Where armed conflict exists, international humanitarian law applies to the conduct of parties and the protection of civilians. Humanitarian assistance must reach affected populations, and counterterrorism measures must not block relief or punish communities collectively.

Regional cooperation is indispensable. Water management, cross-border movement, pastoral routes, fishing access, refugee protection, and security operations cannot be managed by one state alone. The Lake Chad Basin Commission has an important role, but its effectiveness depends on political commitment, funding, data-sharing, and local legitimacy. Climate-sensitive peacebuilding should support livelihoods, mediation over land and water, early warning, and accountable security practices.

The legal lesson is direct. In the Sahel and Lake Chad, Climate Change is a risk multiplier operating through weakened livelihoods and resource stress. The correct response is not to militarise climate policy. It is to strengthen governance, protect civilians, support adaptation, preserve humanitarian access, and manage shared resources lawfully.

9.2 Pacific small island states

Pacific small island states provide the strongest doctrinal case study for public international law because sea-level rise tests statehood, maritime zones, self-determination, nationality, relocation, climate finance, and international adjudication at the same time. Their vulnerability is not only economic or environmental. It reaches the legal identity of states and peoples.

The core problem is existential. Rising seas threaten habitable land, freshwater lenses, coastal infrastructure, burial sites, cultural landscapes, and public institutions. For atoll states, the loss of land is not a distant symbolic issue. It affects housing, food production, health, education, ports, government services, and political continuity (IPCC, 2022).

The Montevideo criteria offer the traditional starting point: a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter relations with other states (Montevideo Convention, 1933). Sea-level rise pressures the first two criteria most directly. Yet international law should not treat climate-threatened states as candidates for legal disappearance. Continuity is the stronger position because it preserves nationality, treaty rights, public assets, diplomatic relations, and the collective identity of peoples whose territory is threatened by a global process they did little to create.

Maritime zones are equally important. Exclusive economic zones and continental shelf rights may be central to fisheries, revenue, food security, and regional influence. If sea-level rise causes baselines to shift or disappear, small island states could lose maritime entitlements just as climate harm intensifies their need for economic stability. This would be legally harsh and politically destabilising. For that reason, many Pacific states support legal stability for maritime zones despite physical coastal change (ILC, 2023).

Advisory opinions have strengthened their position. The ITLOS Advisory Opinion clarified that greenhouse gas emissions may constitute marine pollution under UNCLOS, linking climate harm to duties to protect and preserve the marine environment (ITLOS, 2024). The ICJ Advisory Opinion placed climate obligations within multiple regimes, including climate treaties, human rights, customary prevention, cooperation, and state responsibility (ICJ, 2025). These opinions do not solve the existential threat, but they give Pacific claims a stronger doctrinal footing.

Relocation raises another set of legal issues. It must not be treated as a logistical evacuation. It involves nationality, political representation, cultural survival, family unity, land rights, employment, education, health care, and the dignity of affected peoples. Planned relocation must be participatory, rights-based, and designed to preserve collective identity, not merely physical safety.

Pacific small island states show why climate security is a legal issue of continuity. The question is not only how to reduce harm. It is how to preserve statehood, maritime rights, nationality, and self-determination under conditions that traditional doctrine did not fully anticipate.

9.3 The Andes and glacier melt

The Andes connect climate science, freshwater law, Indigenous rights, mining, urban supply, and adaptation duties. Glacier retreat affects river flows, seasonal water availability, hydropower, agriculture, wetlands, and drinking water. The legal risks are especially sharp where cities, rural communities, Indigenous peoples, and extractive industries depend on the same water systems.

Glaciers function as natural water reserves. As they shrink, the water supply may initially increase and then decline. This creates planning uncertainty. Cities may need new storage and treatment infrastructure. Farmers may face reduced irrigation. Wetlands and high-altitude ecosystems may deteriorate. Mining projects may increase pressure on already stressed watersheds (IPCC, 2022).

International water law is relevant where rivers or aquifers cross borders. Equitable and reasonable utilisation, prevention of significant harm, notification, consultation, and dispute settlement provide a framework for managing scarcity (United Nations, 1997). Even where a dispute is domestic, these principles are useful for analysing fairness, cooperation, and prevention.

Human rights law gives the issue concrete content. The right to water requires availability, quality, accessibility, affordability, and non-discrimination (CESCR, 2002). If glacier retreat threatens drinking water, states must plan before shortages become emergencies. Urban water security cannot be achieved by sacrificing rural or Indigenous communities without consultation, compensation, and legal safeguards.

Indigenous rights are central in Andean regions. Many Indigenous peoples have cultural, spiritual, and economic relationships with mountains, waters, and territories. Adaptation projects, mining approvals, dams, and relocation measures may affect their lands and resources. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples supports consultation, participation, cultural protection, and free, prior, and informed consent in relevant circumstances (UNGA, 2007).

Mining creates a difficult conflict between development, energy transition, and water security. Critical minerals may be important for renewable technologies, but extraction can damage water sources and ecosystems if poorly regulated. Climate security law must not assume that all green-transition projects are automatically lawful. They still require environmental assessment, human rights safeguards, and protection of water resources.

The Andes demonstrate a broader legal point: adaptation is not neutral. Decisions about reservoirs, irrigation, mining, urban supply, and ecosystem protection allocate risk and benefit. Law must ensure that climate adaptation does not become a vehicle for dispossession or unequal access to water.

9.4 South Asian deltas

South Asian deltas show how sea-level rise, flooding, cyclones, salinisation, food insecurity, displacement, and cross-border movement can combine. The Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta and other low-lying coastal areas face dense populations, poverty, agricultural dependence, river dynamics, coastal erosion, and severe disaster exposure. Climate Change intensifies many of these pressures (IPCC, 2022).

Food security is one of the main pathways. Saline intrusion can damage crops and freshwater sources. Flooding can destroy harvests, storage, roads, and markets. Cyclones can wipe out homes, livestock, and fishing assets. When repeated shocks hit poor households, adaptation capacity declines. Families may sell land, take on debt, migrate, or withdraw children from school.

Displacement is often internal. People may move to nearby towns, informal settlements, or major cities. This can create pressure on housing, sanitation, employment, and public services. Cross-border movement may occur in some contexts, but public debate often exaggerates it. Legal analysis must avoid panic narratives and focus on protection, planned adaptation, and dignified mobility.

Refugee law will not automatically protect people displaced by deltaic climate impacts. The 1951 Refugee Convention requires persecution linked to protected grounds (United Nations, 1951). Climate harm alone is not enough. Human rights law may offer protection where removal would expose a person to a real risk of serious harm, especially where climate impacts combine with destitution, conflict, or inability of the state to protect life (Human Rights Committee, 2020).

Disaster protection is equally important. Early warning, cyclone shelters, evacuation planning, resilient housing, embankment maintenance, public health, and social protection are not only technical matters. They are rights-protecting measures. Failure to prepare for foreseeable disasters can endanger life, health, housing, food, and water.

Coastal adaptation is a security measure. It reduces displacement pressure, protects livelihoods, preserves public infrastructure, and lowers the risk of humanitarian crisis. Yet adaptation must be designed carefully. Embankments may protect one community while increasing flooding elsewhere. Relocation may create land conflict. Aquaculture may provide income, but increase salinity and inequality. Climate security requires assessment, participation, and remedies.

South Asian deltas show the limits of treating climate security as a border issue. The deeper legal questions concern domestic protection, disaster preparedness, food systems, human rights, and fair adaptation. Cross-border protection matters, but most legal work begins before people are forced to leave.

9.5 The Arctic

The Arctic proves that climate security is not limited to fragile states. It involves powerful states, Indigenous peoples, military activity, maritime routes, resource extraction, environmental protection, fisheries, and the law of the sea. Rapid warming changes the physical and strategic conditions of the region, but the legal framework remains grounded in cooperation, sovereignty, UNCLOS, and Indigenous rights.

Melting sea ice opens or extends navigational possibilities. This raises questions about shipping safety, search and rescue, pollution response, jurisdiction, and the legal status of maritime routes. Coastal states have rights and duties under UNCLOS, but increased activity also creates shared risks. Oil spills, accidents, and black carbon emissions would have serious consequences in a fragile environment (UNCLOS, 1982; Arctic Council, 2011).

Resource extraction is another security issue. The Arctic contains hydrocarbons, minerals, fisheries, and strategic infrastructure. Climate Change may make some resources more accessible. Yet extraction increases environmental risk and can affect Indigenous lands, livelihoods, and cultural practices. Climate security requires strict assessment, precaution, and participation, not a race for access.

Indigenous peoples are central actors, not background communities. Arctic Indigenous peoples depend on ice, wildlife, seasonal patterns, and traditional knowledge. Climate impacts affect food security, mobility, housing, culture, health, and self-determination. International law requires respect for Indigenous participation, cultural rights, and land-related interests (UNGA, 2007).

Military activity adds tension. Arctic states have increased strategic attention to the region, including surveillance, infrastructure, and defence planning. Not all military activity is unlawful, and security concerns are real. Yet the region’s stability depends on legal restraint, incident prevention, environmental cooperation, and respect for maritime law.

The Arctic Council has traditionally supported environmental cooperation, scientific assessment, and Indigenous participation, although geopolitical tensions have affected its operation. The Arctic example shows that climate security can arise in stable and wealthy regions where strategic competition, economic opportunity, and environmental fragility intersect.

The legal test is a balance. Sovereign rights over resources and maritime zones remain relevant, but they must be exercised consistently with environmental duties, Indigenous rights, and cooperation. The Arctic is not a lawless space opened by melting ice. It is a legally structured region facing new pressure.

Read More

• Climate Refugees and International Law

• The Paris Agreement Explained

• State Responsibility in International Law

• Marine Plastic Pollution Treaty and the Law of the Sea

• South China Sea Arbitration and Its Legal Impact

• Territorial Disputes and International Law: Principles, Cases, and Resolutions

• Principle of Sovereign Equality of States

• The Geopolitical Significance of Greenland

10. Counterarguments and doctrinal limits

10.1 Climate Change is not an armed attack

Climate harm does not fit Article 51 self-defence simply because it is severe. Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a UN member state (United Nations, 1945). Greenhouse gas emissions, even where they cause serious damage, do not satisfy the ordinary legal meaning of an armed attack.

Treating emissions as an armed attack would distort the Charter. It would blur the line between environmental harm and armed force, weaken the prohibition on the use of force, and invite dangerous claims of unilateral coercion. The law on self-defence has strict limits because it permits force. Expanding it to climate harm would damage legal credibility and political stability.

This does not mean climate harm lacks legal consequences. States may breach duties of prevention, cooperation, due diligence, human rights protection, marine environmental protection, or climate treaty obligations. Remedies may include cessation, non-repetition, reparation, stronger regulation, or judicial review. These are legal responses, but they are not Article 51 responses.

The ICJ’s case law on force and self-defence has maintained a distinction between armed attacks and other forms of unlawful conduct (ICJ, 1986; ICJ, 2003). Climate Change should be analysed through environmental law, climate law, human rights law, law of the sea, and state responsibility, not through a forced analogy with military attack.

The better position is simple: Climate Change can threaten security without becoming war. International law has more than one vocabulary for harm. Not every grave injury belongs in the law of force.

10.2 Causation cannot be oversimplified

Claims that Climate Change directly causes war should be rejected. They are too broad, empirically weak, and legally unhelpful. Armed conflict depends on political institutions, armed organisations, grievance, exclusion, inequality, economic incentives, external support, leadership choices, and history. Climate stress may influence these conditions, but it rarely explains violence alone (Koubi, 2019; Mach et al., 2019).

The stronger position is that Climate Change changes risk conditions. It can worsen water scarcity, food insecurity, livelihood loss, displacement, disaster exposure, and competition over resources. These pressures may increase the likelihood of violence where institutions are weak, discriminatory, or already under strain.

This distinction matters for responsibility. If climate change is presented as the direct cause of conflict, the legal argument becomes vague. Which state caused the war? Which emission caused the recruitment? Which remedy follows? These questions cannot be answered credibly without a more precise causal chain.

A pathway-based approach is stronger. It asks how climate stress affected resources, institutions, armed actors, displacement, or social grievance in a particular setting. It then identifies the legal duties engaged: prevention, non-discrimination, humanitarian protection, resource governance, adaptation, cooperation, or peaceful settlement.

The same discipline is needed in policy. Climate determinism can stigmatise vulnerable regions as naturally violent. It can also excuse political responsibility by blaming the weather for governance failure. Good legal analysis must keep human decisions visible.

10.3 Sovereignty still matters

Climate security law must respect sovereign equality, development needs, and self-determination. The UN Charter is built on sovereign equality and non-intervention, while also requiring cooperation in solving international problems (United Nations, 1945). Climate security must operate within that balance.

Vulnerable states should not be treated as objects of external management. They are rights-bearing members of the international community. Their consent, priorities, and development needs matter. Security language becomes dangerous if it gives powerful states a vocabulary for controlling adaptation, migration, resources, or development choices in weaker states.

Sovereignty, however, is not a shield for inaction. States have duties to prevent significant transboundary harm, cooperate, protect human rights, and act with due diligence. The Paris Agreement also reflects sovereign choice through NDCs while requiring progression, ambition, transparency, and cooperation (Paris Agreement, 2015).

The correct legal answer is not external control. It is cooperation, assistance, accountability, capacity-building, and rights-based governance. States retain policy space, but that space must be exercised consistently with climate obligations, environmental duties, and human rights.

Development needs must be taken seriously. Many states still require energy access, infrastructure, food production, and industrial capacity. Climate security cannot demand poverty preservation. It must support a lawful transition that reduces emissions while expanding resilience and human development.

Self-determination is especially important for small island states, Indigenous peoples, and communities facing relocation. Climate policy that protects territory or reduces emissions while disregarding political identity, culture, land rights, and participation is legally defective.

10.4 Courts cannot solve the whole problem

Courts and tribunals clarify duties, but they cannot govern the climate transition by themselves. The ICJ, ITLOS, Inter-American Court, European Court of Human Rights, and domestic courts have all contributed to legal accountability. Their opinions and judgments strengthen due diligence, prevention, human rights protection, and environmental assessment. Yet implementation depends on political institutions.

Climate governance requires legislation, regulation, budgets, administrative capacity, scientific monitoring, infrastructure, diplomacy, finance, and public trust. Courts can identify legal boundaries and correct unlawful omissions. They cannot design every emissions pathway, allocate all climate finance, manage every grid system, or supervise every adaptation project.

Judicial remedies also face institutional limits. A court may order a state to revise a policy or adopt adequate measures, but the details often remain with political branches and expert agencies. That is not a weakness. It reflects the separation of powers and institutional competence.

The risk is judicial overstatement on one side and judicial avoidance on the other. Courts should not pretend that they can solve all climate insecurity. They also should not refuse review merely because climate policy is complex. Complexity does not erase legal obligations.

The best judicial role is disciplined accountability. Courts can require reasoned decision-making, rights protection, scientific consistency, impact assessment, non-discrimination, disclosure, and credible implementation. These are powerful tools when used with precision.

Climate litigation is necessary but insufficient. It must be paired with domestic regulation, climate finance, international cooperation, corporate accountability, and local participation. Law without implementation will not reduce insecurity.

10.5 The Security Council is not the climate regime

The Security Council should not displace the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. The Council is responsible for international peace and security, not for managing the full architecture of global climate governance. Mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer, transparency, and NDCs belong primarily to the climate regime and related environmental and human rights frameworks.

The Council’s role is narrower and more defensible. It can address climate-related risks where they affect conflict prevention, peace operations, humanitarian access, mandate implementation, peacebuilding, or post-conflict stabilisation. It can request better reporting, support risk assessment, and integrate climate analysis into country files. It should not become the institution that decides global climate ambition.

This limit matters politically. Many states fear that climate security language could move climate governance into a less representative and more coercive forum. Those concerns are serious. The Council’s permanent-member structure is not suited to equitable allocation of climate burdens.

The Council’s tools are also poorly matched to the problem. Sanctions and military authorisations do not cut emissions, build seawalls, restore watersheds, finance adaptation, or protect small island statehood. They may be relevant in specific conflict settings, but they are not climate policy instruments.

A balanced approach preserves institutional roles. The climate regime should govern mitigation, adaptation, finance, and transparency. Human rights bodies should protect persons and communities. The law of the sea should address marine impacts. Domestic courts should review implementation. The Security Council should act where climate risk affects peace and security operations.

That allocation is legally cleaner and politically more durable. Climate Change is a security risk, but not every security risk belongs under coercive Security Council control.

Conclusion

Climate Change is a security risk because it makes foreseeable harm more likely, more severe, and harder for institutions to manage. It threatens water, food, health, housing, territory, maritime stability, livelihoods, public infrastructure, and the ability of states to protect people under their jurisdiction. Its legal significance does not depend on proving that climate change directly causes war. The stronger claim is that climate change increases insecurity where exposure, vulnerability, weak governance, inequality, and limited adaptation capacity interact.

Public international law does not need to invent a militarised doctrine of climate security. Existing law already provides relevant tools. Due diligence requires states to act with appropriate care in light of known risks. Prevention requires action before significant harm occurs. Cooperation requires information-sharing, adaptation support, management of shared resources, and responses to transboundary effects. Human rights law protects life, health, water, food, housing, culture, participation, and remedies. The law of the sea protects marine systems affected by warming, acidification, and sea-level rise. Peaceful settlement gives states mechanisms to manage climate-related disputes before they become crises. State responsibility provides consequences where international obligations are breached.

Recent advisory opinions have strengthened this legal architecture. The ICJ, ITLOS, and the Inter-American Court have clarified that climate obligations are not merely political commitments. They arise through climate treaties, customary law, UNCLOS, human rights law, cooperation duties, and responsibility principles. These decisions do not remove every difficulty. Causation, attribution, compensation, implementation, and enforcement remain difficult. Yet they narrow the space for states to treat climate harm as optional or legally remote.

The Security Council has a role, but it is a limited one. It may address climate-related risks where they affect peace operations, conflict prevention, humanitarian access, mandate implementation, or post-conflict stabilisation. It should not replace the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Climate governance must remain grounded in universal participation, equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, finance, adaptation, and human rights.

The case studies confirm the need for precision. The Sahel and Lake Chad show how climate stress interacts with armed groups, governance failure, livelihoods, displacement, and regional cooperation. Pacific small island states show how sea-level rise tests state continuity, maritime zones, nationality, and self-determination. The Andes show how glacier melt links water rights, Indigenous rights, mining, and urban adaptation. South Asian deltas show why coastal protection, food security, and disaster preparedness are legal prevention measures. The Arctic shows that climate security also affects wealthy and strategically important regions through maritime routes, resource extraction, Indigenous rights, and military presence.

The doctrinal limits are equally important. Climate Change is not an armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Climate causation must not be oversimplified. Sovereignty still matters. Courts cannot replace political and administrative climate governance. The Security Council is not the climate regime. Ignoring these limits would weaken the argument and make climate security analysis legally vulnerable.

The final point is straightforward. The challenge is not to prove that Climate Change automatically causes conflict. It does not. The challenge is to prove that states and international organisations must act before foreseeable climate stress becomes humanitarian collapse, territorial instability, resource violence, forced displacement, or regional insecurity. Public international law already has the language and tools for that task. The urgent problem is implementation.

References

1. Arctic Council (2011) Agreement on Cooperation on Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue in the Arctic. Nuuk: Arctic Council. Available at: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/items/b41be4fb-28f5-4b10-9387-6c843987e3c1 (Accessed: 16 May 2026).

2. Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (1984) Cartagena Declaration on Refugees. Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/media/cartagena-declaration-refugees-adopted-colloquium-international-protection-refugees-central (Accessed: 16 May 2026).

3. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999) General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food. E/C.12/1999/5. Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/E/C.12/1999/5 (Accessed: 16 May 2026).

4. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2002) General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water. E/C.12/2002/11. Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/E/C.12/2002/11 (Accessed: 16 May 2026).

5. European Court of Human Rights (2024) Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, Application no. 53600/20, Judgment of 9 April 2024. Strasbourg: ECtHR. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233206 (Accessed: 16 May 2026).

6. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2023) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023: Urbanization, Agrifood Systems Transformation and Healthy Diets Across the Rural–Urban Continuum. Rome: FAO. Available at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cc3017en (Accessed: 16 May 2026).

7. Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (2021) Order of the First Senate of 24 March 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18, 1 BvR 78/20, 1 BvR 96/20 and 1 BvR 288/20. Karlsruhe: Bundesverfassungsgericht. Available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2021/03/rs20210324_1bvr265618en.html (Accessed: 16 May 2026).

8. Goodwin-Gill, G.S. and McAdam, J. (2021) The Refugee in International Law. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. Human Rights Committee (2020) Ioane Teitiota v New Zealand. CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016. Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 (Accessed: 16 May 2026).

11. Human Rights Council (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. A/HRC/17/31. Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/17/31 (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

12. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2025) Climate Emergency and Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of 29 May 2025. Series A No. 32. San José: Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_32_en.pdf (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

13. International Court of Justice (1949) Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v Albania), Merits, Judgment. ICJ Reports 1949, p. 4.

14. International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment. ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

15. International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion. ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226.

16. International Court of Justice (1997) Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment. ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7.

17. International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Judgment. ICJ Reports 2003, p. 161.

18. International Court of Justice (2010) Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgment. ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14.

19. International Court of Justice (2025) Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025. The Hague: ICJ. Available at: https://icj-web.leman.un-icc.cloud/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

20. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2007) Guidelines for the Domestic Facilitation and Regulation of International Disaster Relief and Initial Recovery Assistance. Geneva: IFRC. Available at: https://disasterlaw.ifrc.org/sites/default/files/media/disaster_law/2020-09/1205600-IDRL%20Guidelines-EN-LR.pdf (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

21. International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

22. International Law Commission (2008) Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers. A/63/10. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/8_5_2008.pdf (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

23. International Law Commission (2016) Draft Articles on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters. A/71/10. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/6_3_2016.pdf (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

24. International Law Commission (2023) Sea-Level Rise in Relation to International Law. Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/8_9.shtml (Accessed: 20 May 2026).

25. International Organization for Migration (2019) Glossary on Migration. International Migration Law No. 34. Geneva: IOM. Available at: https://publications.iom.int/books/international-migration-law-ndeg34-glossary-migration (Accessed: 20 May 2026).

26. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2024) Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion of 21 May 2024. Hamburg: ITLOS. Available at: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/31/Advisory_Opinion/C31_Adv_Op_21.05.2024_corr.pdf (Accessed: 20 May 2026).

27. IPCC (2022) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (Accessed: 20 May 2026).

28. IPCC (2023) Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

29. Klabbers, J. (2024) International Law. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30. Koubi, V. (2019) ‘Climate change and conflict’, Annual Review of Political Science, 22, pp. 343–360.

31. Mach, K.J., Kraan, C.M., Adger, W.N., Buhaug, H., Burke, M., Fearon, J.D., Field, C.B., Hendrix, C.S., Maystadt, J.-F., O’Loughlin, J., Roessler, P., Scheffran, J., Schultz, K.A. and von Uexkull, N. (2019) ‘Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict’, Nature, 571, pp. 193–197.

32. McDonald, M. (2013) ‘Discourses of climate security’, Political Geography, 33, pp. 42–51.

33. Mobjörk, M., Gustafsson, M.-T., Sonnsjö, H., van Baalen, S., Dellmuth, L.M. and Bremberg, N. (2016) Climate-Related Security Risks: Towards an Integrated Approach. Solna: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Available at: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Climate-related-security-risks.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

34. Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. Montevideo, 26 December 1933. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20165/v165.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

35. OECD (2022) Investment Treaties and Climate Change: Public Consultation on Climate Policies for Investment Treaties. Paris: OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/investment/investment-policy/investment-treaties-and-climate-change.htm (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

36. OECD (2023) Development Finance for Climate and Environment-Related Fragility. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/development-finance-for-climate-and-environment-related-fragility_b2294ce0/0db04331-en.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

37. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2021) The Impacts of Climate Change on the Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights [online]. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/climate-change/impacts-climate-change-effective-enjoyment-human-rights (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

38. Organisation of African Unity (1969) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. Addis Ababa: OAU. Available at: https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/36400-treaty-0005_-_oau_convention_governing_the_specific_aspects_of_refugee_problems_in_africa_e.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

39. Schubert, R., Schellnhuber, H.J., Buchmann, N., Epiney, A., Grießhammer, R., Kulessa, M., Messner, D., Rahmstorf, S. and Schmid, J. (2008) Climate Change as a Security Risk. London: Earthscan. Available at: https://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu/publikationen/hauptgutachten/hg2007/pdf/wbgu_hg2007_engl.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

40. Supreme Court of the Netherlands (2019) State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007, Judgment of 20 December 2019. The Hague: Supreme Court of the Netherlands. Available at: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

41. Tienhaara, K. (2018) ‘Regulatory chill in a warming world: the threat to climate policy posed by investor-state dispute settlement’, Transnational Environmental Law, 7(2), pp. 229–250.

42. Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v Canada) (1941) Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III, pp. 1905–1982.

43. Trombetta, M.J. (2008) ‘Environmental security and climate change: analysing the discourse’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(4), pp. 585–602.

44. UN Climate Security Mechanism (2022) Climate Security Mechanism: Progress Report 2022. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://mptf.undp.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-11/csm_progress_report_2022.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

45. UN Women, UNEP, UNDP and DPPA (2020) Gender, Climate and Security: Sustaining Inclusive Peace on the Frontlines of Climate Change. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Gender-climate-and-security-en.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

46. UNDP (1994) Human Development Report 1994. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-1994 (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

47. UNDRR (2015) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Available at: https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030 (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

48. UNEP (2022) Adaptation Gap Report 2022: Too Little, Too Slow – Climate Adaptation Failure Puts World at Risk. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2022 (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

49. UNEP (n.d.) Climate Change and Security Risks [online]. Available at: https://www.unep.org/topics/disasters-and-conflicts/environment-security/climate-change-and-security-risks (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

50. United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco: United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

51. United Nations (1951) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva: United Nations. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

52. United Nations (1954) Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-relating-status-stateless-persons (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

53. United Nations (1961) Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-reduction-statelessness (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

54. United Nations (1966a) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

55. United Nations (1966b) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

56. United Nations (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Montego Bay: United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

57. United Nations (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

58. United Nations (1997) Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_3_1997.pdf (Accessed: 22 May 2026).

59. United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement. Paris: United Nations. Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (Accessed: 22 May 2026).

60. United Nations General Assembly (2007) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A/RES/61/295. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/61/295 (Accessed: 22 May 2026).

61. United Nations General Assembly (2022) The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment. A/RES/76/300. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/76/300 (Accessed: 22 May 2026).

62. United Nations Security Council (2011) Statement by the President of the Security Council. S/PRST/2011/15. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/PRST/2011/15 (Accessed: 22 May 2026).

63. United Nations Security Council (2017) Resolution 2349 (2017). S/RES/2349. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/2349(2017) (Accessed: 22 May 2026).

64. United Nations Security Council (2018) Resolution 2423 (2018). S/RES/2423. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/2423(2018) (Accessed: 22 May 2026).

65. United Nations Security Council (2021) Draft Resolution on Climate and Security. S/2021/990. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/2021/990 (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

66. United Nations Security Council (2021) Maintenance of International Peace and Security: Security in the Context of Terrorism and Climate Change. S/PV.8926. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/PV.8926 (Accessed: 22 May 2026).