Governing Climate Mobility in Turbulent Times: Fragmentation, Adaptation, and Emerging Norms

Climate change is accelerating population displacement as sea‑level rise, extreme weather events, and environmental degradation undermine livelihoods and habitability. Although most climate‑related mobility remains internal, cross‑border displacement is projected to increase as environmental pressures intensify. Yet existing international refugee law—anchored in the 1951 Refugee Convention—does not recognize climate‑induced displacement, leaving affected populations without formal protection and generating mounting governance challenges. This paper examines climate‑induced mobility through the lens of regime theory and institutionalism, arguing that emerging responses reflect not a failure of climate or humanitarian governance, but the evolution of a fragmented and contested regime complex. Within this turbulent governance landscape, states remain reluctant to adopt a binding legal category of “climate refugee.” Instead, they increasingly rely on functionally equivalent mechanisms—temporary protection regimes, expanded interpretations of non‑refoulement, planned relocation frameworks, and regional mobility arrangements. These practices form an adaptive but uneven governance architecture that reveals the tension between ambition, implementation, and political contestation in climate governance. Over time, the accumulation of such practices may generate institutional pressure toward the gradual formalization of climate‑related protection norms, even without full interstate consensus. Empirically, the paper draws on a panel dataset of selected African states and an in‑depth case study of Kiribati (2015–2025), combining disaster‑related displacement data (IDMC), climate hazard indicators (EM‑DAT), and state capacity measures (World Bank Governance Indicators). Panel regression analysis identifies the conditions under which climate shocks most strongly correlate with displacement, while scenario‑based forecasting estimates how mobility pressures and protection gaps may evolve under alternative climate and adaptation trajectories. The findings show that climate‑induced displacement increasingly exposes the limits of existing legal and institutional frameworks, particularly in low‑capacity African states and highly vulnerable small island contexts. The paper argues that the continued reliance on fragmented, functionally equivalent mechanisms is likely to drive incremental institutionalization within the global mobility regime—highlighting both the possibilities and the political constraints of climate governance in turbulent times.