The United Nations establishes the right of climate migrants

The United Nations Human Rights Committee stressed that the issue of climate migration has a legal relevance that urges world governments to consider the climate emergency as a legal factor capable of becoming the cause of a possible granting of asylum to these specific migrants. This is a considerable innovation within international law, because it takes note of the consequences of climate change on problems relating to the environment and the causes that pose a danger to people's lives. Implicitly it is the legal recognition for the category of climate refugees, that is those who, due to natural events caused, for example by global warming, see the soil available to them to be reduced, as for the effects of rising sea waters, with the consequence of housing difficulties, problems with crops and water supply. The classification of the harmful consequences of the cliamtic change is divided substantially into two types: the damage due to prolonged effects over time, such as the increase in the saline percentage of the soils, the sea rise or desertification and the damage due to sudden events and not as expected as floods. It is understood how these natural disasters can force even large parts of the population to cross national borders to find shelter in other nations. According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the absence of national and international policies aimed at countering the effects of climate change justifies the right of climate migrants not to be rejected. If this pronouncement, in some ways revolutionary, even if it is basically only an acknowledgment of a claimed problem, brings a novelty in international law, it simultaneously opens a wide range of exceptions and objections, on which the national legislators will certainly try to regulate their systems. One of the first circumstances to be resolved are the methods and times of reception, given that, at least in certain cases, the restoration of the conditions prior to the disastrous events can be assumed. It is more difficult to manage situations where irremediable conditions occur, in these cases forms of preventive agreements between states would be desirable, capable of managing migratory phenomena, through a preordained location and with a reception not limited to first aid, but marked by a real and definitive integration by the host countries. Climate issues undoubtedly have a direct effect on food resources and the availability of drinking water, inextricably linked to famines, the impossibility of irrigation and therefore of agricultural and livestock production, up to compromising normal hygiene conditions and therefore the cause of widespread diseases. The effects of climate change are certainly responsible for these indirect cases of migratory phenomena, which do not fall directly into the two climatic cases drawn up by the Human Rights Committee. However, it does not seem possible to separate, from the point of gravity and the causes that generate the phenomenon, climate migrants from migrants for lack of food and water; therefore even for those who are forced to abandon their countries due to the chronic absence of food resources, a preventive solution should be designed, through international agreements to be signed by individual states, perhaps with a coordination of the United Nations. But in times of national sovereignties and selfishness this appears very difficult, even if the contingent situation already appears complicated, no effort is noted to prevent the consequences of climate change, which is indeed denied, and without changes in attitude the migratory pressure is destined to accentuate. The importance of the decision of the human rights committee does not solve the practical problem of reception or even that of climate change due to global warming, but opens a discussion on the legitimacy of rejecting migrants who become migrants for causes external to them and, often , due precisely to the countries that reject them.