Cross-Border Disaster Displacement and Non-Refoulement under Article 3 of the ECHR: An Analysis of the European Union and Austria

Abstract

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.