Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Cross-Border Disaster Displacement and Non-Refoulement under Article 3 of the ECHR

An Analysis of the European Union and Austria

Bibliographic Data

ID15293289
AuthorsMargit Ammer (0000-0002-0688-9862, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights, corresponding author), Monika Mayrhofer (0000-0003-0160-604X, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights)
Year2023
Volume35
Issue3
Pages322-345
Publication date2023-10-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Refugee Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0953-8186 • E-ISSN: 1464-3715
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/ijrl/eead036
OpenAlexW4390640445
LanguageEN
Citations received1

Academic literature and policy papers have suggested that the principle of non-refoulement can address the protection gap that exists for people displaced across international borders in the context of disasters and climate change. This article analyses whether non-refoulement under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and subsidiary protection under article 15(b) of the European Union (EU) Qualification Directive could meet this expectation. It assesses their applicability to the cases of individuals who would face difficult living conditions due to the impacts of disasters upon return to their State of origin. This analysis lays the groundwork for a case study focusing on Austria, which as a Council of Europe and an EU Member State has obligations under the ECHR and the Qualification Directive. The case study discusses whether the principle of non-refoulement under article 3 ECHR and the eligibility criteria of subsidiary protection – as incorporated in Austrian law and as interpreted by Austrian courts – address the protection gap at the national level. To this end, the results of a qualitative analysis of 646 decisions on international protection decided by the Austrian appellate court are presented. The article concludes that the ‘livelihood’ approach used by the Austrian courts opens up the possibility of taking disasters and their impacts into account when conducting a real risk assessment under article 3 ECHR. However, the European Court of Human Rights’ suggestion of applying the ‘medical cases’ approach in cases relating to ‘naturally occurring phenomena’ is not adequate to address the protection gap. Against this backdrop, the article reflects on a possible way forward

Business · Context (archaeology · Convention · Damages · Directive · European union · Fundamental rights · Geography · Human rights · International trade · Member state · Member states · Political science · State (computer science · Climate Change, Adaptation, Migration · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · Migration, Refugees, and Integration · Law

  • Governance

    Simona Capisani, Sarah Louise Nash et al.•Climate and Development•2026

Citations per year1
Citation span2026 - 2026 (1)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae