The adverse effects of climate change do not stop at national borders. Desertification, erosion, drought, wildfires, floods, storms and biodiversity loss form a transnational problem in which ecological, social and legal crises interact. Migration is not an isolated consequence but part of this complex chain of effects.
A climate-related disaster may first endanger life, health, property and livelihoods directly. When affected people must then leave their homes, a second risk environment emerges: displacement and forced mobility can disrupt protective networks, intensify dependency and impede access to public authorities, accommodation, healthcare and legal assistance.
From a victimological perspective, people in these circumstances may face heightened exposure to physical, psychological and sexual violence, as well as economic exploitation. Criminologically, disrupted institutions and acute dependency can create opportunities for human trafficking, forced labour, sexual exploitation and other serious offences. Climate change does not automatically cause crime; it can, however, magnify vulnerability and criminal opportunity where public and social safeguards break down.
The proper response is therefore not to treat migrants as a security threat. They are rights-holders and, in many settings, potential victims of targeted exploitation. A narrowly securitised approach can obscure their exposure to harm and may itself contribute to stigma, exclusion and further violence.
Criminal law consequently has a dual task. It must respond effectively to serious violations of bodily and sexual autonomy, liberty and human dignity. At the same time, it cannot be expected to resolve an ecological and social crisis through criminalisation alone. A credible response requires coordination across migration law, social protection, disaster governance, human rights law and criminal justice.
Climate-induced migration therefore calls for an integrated analysis of environmental harm, mobility and crime risk. Focusing only on the disaster overlooks dangers encountered during displacement; focusing only on migration conceals its climatic drivers. A sound legal framework must connect both dimensions.
De lege lata, it is necessary to assess whether offences concerning human trafficking, forced labour, sexual exploitation and related conduct adequately address the distinctive risks of climate-induced mobility. The existence of offences alone is insufficient; safe reporting, evidence preservation and cross-border cooperation determine their practical effectiveness. De lege ferenda, limited and precise measures addressing concrete protection gaps should be preferred to criminalising climate-induced migration. Further analysis is required concerning the criminal-law significance of deliberately exploiting climate-related vulnerability and the proper scope of the relevant offences.
A preventive approach is not confined to creating offences. It requires safe and confidential reporting channels, early risk assessments, specialised investigative and victim-support units, interpretation, psychosocial assistance, cross-border evidence preservation and immigration safeguards that do not turn cooperation with law-enforcement authorities into an additional danger.
Preventive climate criminal law must not become a licence for boundless anticipatory criminalisation. Criminal law remains a measure of last resort and must comply with legality, legal certainty, culpability and proportionality. Its purpose is not to criminalise mobility, but to establish effective, victim-centred and internationally coordinated protection against violence and exploitation.
Academic basis
This article draws on Gülsün Ayhan Aygörmez, “Climate Criminal Law and Climate Migration in Turkish Criminal Law”, Chapter 18, in Sibel Safi (ed.), Dynamics of Migration and Comparative Immigration Law, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne 2026, from p. 384, ISBN 978-1-0364-7886-5.