The court took the orthodox position that persecution is primarily political and internal. There had to be a “violation” of human rights and a “failure” of state protection. Teitiota’s claim turned that definition on its head. In essence, his claim held that the violation and failure was on the part of the international community. The persecution was external, not internal, and environmental, not political. The decision reveals – in all its misery - the protection deficit in international law. A judicial decision is an uncodified statement of power relations. Never could there be a more unequal power relationship than here: on one side, the I-Kiribati and their sinking home, on the other the rigid machinery of international law. If Lord Diplock is right, then “law is about man’s duty to his neighbour”. That principle should underpin our approach to climate change and forced migration.
Posted on: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:09:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015