Read time 04-06 minutes
Rising sea level in Bangladesh may displace almost nine lakh people from the southern part of Bangladesh by 2050, because their homes and livelihoods will be jeopardised. But the crisis is not going to happen instantaneously; it’s already happening. Every year, countless people on the coast are being forced to abandon their ancestral homes, not because they want to but because it has become impossible to stay. Rising sea level, river erosion, cyclones, and salinity intrusion destroy their land, which was used to farm their livelihood, and also affect the access to safe water.
Now, when there’s no soil to yield crops, no pure water to drink, and also rivers claiming homes, only migration becomes a matter of survival for them. Mainly for these reasons, people often move to the divisional cities or the capital, then a troubling question arises: what happens to their legal rights after the displacement?
Bangladesh has a well-known history of labor migration because of urbanization, but climate-driven migration is different. This displacement is a forced movement that is linked to environmental harm that often becomes permanent.
Yet in everyday law and administration, there’s no commonly used legal identity called a “climate migrant”. People from different places arrive in big cities carrying loss, no documents. Their reason for moving is real, but it’s very difficult to prove to the institutions that often demand it. Without proper recognition, displaced people frequently fell through gaps between disaster management, constitutional right violations, local government services, and social protection.
Now, the most concerning part is why international refugee law does not fit? When people hear the term “climate refugee”, it sounds intuitive. But under Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, it states that-
A refugee is someone outside their country who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality or has membership of a particular social group or political opinion, then here’s comes the twist: most climate-displaced Bangladeshis are moving within Bangladeshi territory, and climate harm is not usually treated as “persecution” under that framework so legally they are better described as internally displaced persons (IDP’s) not refugees, as they did not crossed an international border. So, the typical coastal family displaced to Dhaka or any other city will not be treated as refugees according to international law but IDP . As they are an internal migrant.
The constitution promises rights, but displacement makes them fragile
Under Bangladesh’s constitution part-II (Fundamental principles of state policy) and Part III (Fundamental rights) promise equality before law (Article 27), Protection of life and personal liberty (Article 32), prohibition of forced labour (Article 34) and human rights (Article 11). These are not practical ideals for a displaced family.
After displacement, the right to life and livelihood becomes the first casualty. Work is usually informal – day labour, rickshaw-pulling, domestic work, construction, where wages are very low to maintain their family’s basic needs, and they are also forced to do forced labour with little practical access to remedy, sometimes no remedy at all.
After the move, equality before the law becomes complicated; they are treated as outsiders where they take shelter, even though they are citizens of this country. Without any proper proof of residence, they struggle to access city-based services, health services, food services, and educational services, leaving behind a large illiterate generation.
Climate migration is not just stories about nature, but it is now a concerning matter about citizenship and their legal rights. The question is no longer whether displacement will increase. It is whether the legal system will adapt fast enough to protect those who are already displaced.
Hadiur Rahman Dhrubo
Student of LAW
East West University