Abstract
It is increasingly evident that climate change is intersecting in complex ways with the more traditional drivers of migration, such as poverty and conflict. Yet there remains a startling lack of international agreement on how to address the issue. This article examines the problem climate change-related migration poses in terms of international responsibility and provides a review of two approaches to addressing this challenge. First, the idea that migration in the context of climate change requires the development of a new international protection agreement and, second, the argument that migration should be managed and mitigated through in situ adaptation and development programmes. These approaches differ in terms of how they understand the relationship between migration and climate change and thus differ also in terms of how they situate responsibility and address issues of climate justice. This paper explores these differences and outlines the benefits and challenges of both. Following this, we turn to the case of New Zealand’s immigration tribunal appeals involving claims for climate-refugee status and look at how in situ adaptation, development narratives and arbitrary risk thresholds have been used to legitimise the denial of these claims. Throughout the article, we ask to what extent these approaches acknowledge climate justice, and we conclude by looking at ways that climate (mobility) justice might be better incorporated into solutions that prioritise the needs of migrants in the context of rapid climate change.