Hosting the Small Island Developing States: two scenarios

• Date: 19 March 2018
• Pages: 229-244
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-10-2017-0183
• Published date: 19 March 2018
• Author: Milla Emilia Vaha
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Environmental issues,Climate change

Hosting the Small Island

Developing States: two scenarios

Milla Emilia Vaha

Faculty of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

Abstract

Purpose –It has been estimated that some Small Island Developing States might have only decades

before their territories become uninhabitable. Future of these states poses timely questions to world

politics. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between the potential hosts and

endangered states at the time of relocation by looking at two relocation scenarios: Kiribati/New Zealand

and the Maldives/Sri Lanka.

Design/methodology/approach –The paper uses normative international political theory to explore

the nature of relocation. It critically examines the proposal for the free right to choose the new host state.

Guided by two examples, the paper proposes that we should not ignore the contingent reasoning when

evaluatingthese hypothetical scenarios.

Findings –The paper argues that the endangered state might have ethical grounds for its rights–

claims to continuous existence on a chosen territory. At the same time, both scenarios looked at here

also impose serious constraints. By illustrating these constraints, the paper aims at mapping some

central challenges that the continuity of endangered states creates to international state -system. The

paper argues that the complex relationships between the potential hosts and the relocating communities

should not be ignored.

Originality/value –This paper providesa contextual analysis of two hypothetical relocationscenarios. In

doing so, it relies on comparativeresearch in two regions and offers a normativeargument in relation to the

rights of both endangeredand host populations.

Keywords Migration, Climate change, Relocation, International Relations, Small island states

Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction

Sea-level rise affects Small Island Developing States. The International Panel on Climate

Change noted the special vulnerability of island nations as early as 2001 (Hey et al., 2001).

Low-lying atoll states such as the Marshall Islands and Kiribati in the South Pacif‌ic Ocean

and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean are estimated to be at the greatest risk if sea-levelrise

continues. While no one can predict with certainty what will happen to these states should

they be submerged beneaththe ocean, relocation has been considered at least by the political

leaders of these states as an alternative, and sometimes even the only plausible, imaginary[1].

In addition to migration, other alternatives, such as “nation ex-situ”(Burkett, 2013)and

“continuous recognition”(Stoutenburg, 2015) have been explored in the legal literature as well.

In each case, if the relocation becomes timely, the question of course is where are these people

going to relocate? Some of the Small Island Developing States already have historical ties with

© Milla Emilia Vaha. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and

create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to

full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at

http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Small Island

Developing

States

229

Received6 October 2017

Revised23 October 2017

29October 2017

Accepted31 October 2017

InternationalJournal of Climate

ChangeStrategies and

Management

Vol.10 No. 2, 2018

pp. 229-244

EmeraldPublishing Limited

1756-8692

DOI 10.1108/IJCCSM-10-2017-0183

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-8692.htm

other states, such as the Marshall Islands to the USA or Niue and Tokelau to New Zealand[2].

Others, such as Tuvalu and Kiribati, have existing educational and labor schemes with their

larger Pacif‌ic neighbors Australia and New Zealand.

Relocation is a complex politicaland legal matter. On the one hand, the rights of potential

climate migrants need to be solved, as the contemporary international legal framework

provides no protection for “climaterefugees”. On the other hand, if these states are going to

continue their existence as states, the rights and obligations deriving from statehood on

foreign land need to be reconsidered. Relocation is not only a matter of migrating

individuals. It is provocatively also a matter of rights and responsibilities related to

continuous existence as a political community. Whereas the proposals to relocate a certain

amount of –or even all –citizens from the island communities to new host states seem

plausible enough (given that we are only talking about less than a few million people who

are at the highest risk), relocating political communities with continuing collective rights

seems to be a different proposal altogether. It is a proposal that raises several interesting

dilemmas from the perspective of international politics and law, both theoretically and in

terms of political practice. Some of these questions have been discussed lately,

predominantly by international lawyers (Gerrard and Wannier, 2013;McAdam, 2012a;

Stoutenburg, 2015;Yamamoto and Esteban, 2014). The ethical challenges related to these

potential relocationscenarios, however, have not yet been suff‌iciently explored.

To illustrate some of these ethical questions –and most importantly to contextualize

them –the paper at hand looks at two previously proposed relocation scenarios: the

Maldives relocation plan to Sri Lanka and Kiribati’s plan to relocate its population to New

Zealand. In both cases, the proposal has actually been made to relocate populations to new

territories in prospective host countries. In both cases, one might argue, the endangered

populations have strongethical grounds for their rights–claims to continuous existenceon a

chosen territory. Both Kiribatiand the Maldives are low-lying atoll states and consideredby

the United Nations as highly vulnerable.In both cases as well, the proposal is to relocate to a

signif‌icantly larger neighboringcountry that has regional and cultural similarities with the

endangered home state. In addition, in both cases, there is already a substantial migrated

population from the island state in the suggestedhost country. The historical and communal

ties of migration are therefore already in place,arguably helping the integration process of

the greater populationinto their new homelands.

Yet, the existing arrangementsallow only a certain, limited number of individuals to seek

residency in these countries. These arrangements, it might be argued, are not suff‌icient

when the majority of the i-Kiribati and Maldivian community need to leave their homeland.

At the same time, both scenariosalso impose other serious constraints. What is at stake here

is the particular suitabilityof potential host state to accommodate the newcomers. Politically

and culturally, there might be reasonssuch as economic capacity or domestic cohesion that

have to be taken into account when considering the suitability of hosting endangered

populations. Normatively,it also has to be considered if the proposed host country is the one

that has the specif‌ic responsibilityto welcome the incomers in the f‌irst place[3].

In my previous work on the right of Small Island Developing States to exist, I have

theoretically explored the idea of continuous statehood through the potentially conf‌lictual

territorial rights–claims of Small Island Developing States and their new homelands in the

event that the endangered state relocates to a territory that belongs to another state (Vaha,

2015). I have argued that the Small Island Developing States might have the right to

continuous existenceas states. If this is the case, there might also be a corresponding duty to

enable this continuous existence. In the framework of the international state system, this

responsibility falls to the states that are not at risk of state-extinction themselves. How do

IJCCSM

10,2

230