ICCPR, HRC (CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016) “The angry sea will kill us

all”
IOANE TEITIOTA V NEW ZEALAND
HRLT WEEK 12 :Human
displacement and human
rights crisis

• HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND THEORY

• An individuals who is forced to move from a particular
place due to unforeseeable/foreseeable destructive
weather patterns caused due to climate change
• Latest in the growing lines of individuals seeking refugee
status
• Gave global warming a whole new meaning with the
angel of human rights 
• Refugee crisis has begun with island countries but is
moving towards hilly regions and heavily forested areas
• Teitiota challenged the view of the world on global
warming affecting people
• It is no longer confined to melting ice caps, but 'sinking
livelihoods'.
Relevant Articles of the ICCPR
• Article 6(1)
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No
one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
(p.9.4) “The committee further recalls that the obligation of State parties to respect
and ensure right to life extends to reasonably foreseeable threats and life-threatening
situations that can result in loss of life”
• Article(7)
• “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or
scientific experimentation.”
( p.29)- “The Tribunal also found that there was not a substantial risk that the author’s
rights under A.7 of the Covenant would be violated by his removal”
 Issues

• 1.  Whether the communication made by the

author is admissible as per rule 97 of the
optional protocol“ (p.8.1)
• 2.Whether the author faced an imminent risk of
being arbitrarily deprived of his life by his
removal from New Zealand by the State Party to
Kiribati?
- Sub-Issue:1 – Whether the author’s life was
endangered by land scarcity driven violence?
(p.9.7)
-Sub-Issue:2 – Whether the author’s life was
endangered due to the lack of freshwater? (9.8)
-Sub-Issue:3 – Whether the author’s life was
endangered due to lack of access to sustenance?
(p.9.9)
ISSUE 1: Whether the communication made by the author is admissible as per rule 97 of it’s rule of procedure?

-(p.8.6) Article 1 and 2 of the ‘Optional protocol’ so

not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of
the communication.
- Grounds for admissibility
1) Author sufficiently demonstrated that due to
impact of climate change (rising sea levels) on the
Republic of Kiribati
2) Threat to life based on security situation on
the islands
3) Deportation from New Zealand by the state
party …
A real risk of impairment to his right to life under
Article 6 of the Covenant has occurred…Therefore
the committee decides to proceed the
communication based on its merits.
 -The committee considers the general situation of violence in relation to
land disputes in Kiribati while keeping in focus the author’s individual
Sub Issue- 2.1 circumstance.
“Whether the author’s -In order to attract Article 6 or 7 of the covenant violence needs to be of
life was endangered by “sufficient intensity to create a real risk of irreparable harm”
land scarcity driven -The author claims that he himself has never been a victim to such
violence? (p.9.7)” violence arising out of land disputes
-hence , “the author has not demonstrated clear arbitrariness in the
domestic authorities assessment as to whether he faced real,personal and
reasonable foreseeable risk of threat to his life as a result” of land disputes
due to overcrowding at Kiribati. (p.9.7)
Sub-Issue:2 – Whether the author’s life was endangered due to the lack of freshwater? (9.8)