Simona Capisani

In a human changed world, many non-human organisms face a host of challenges related to their ability to migrate or remain in place. We argue for a right to a livable locality for non-human organisms further developing and applying arguments for a right to livability in the context of human climate migration. We argue that the right to a livable locality for non-human organisms emerges from the social practice of the international state system. We demonstrate that non-human organisms can be understood as a type of by-catch within the territorial net this social practice casts. Incorporating a right to a livable locality of non-human organisms into conservation practice is advantageous because it frees conservation from a dominant historical and normative evaluative scheme—in situ conservation. In a changing and warmer world, an over emphasis on in situ conservation makes conservation success difficult to achieve. A shift to livability considerations in conservation can guide normative evaluation in emergent conservation paradoxes and problems that arise due to environmental and climatic change.

As climate change intensifies, scientific and policy discussions increasingly address questions of future habitability and potential population movements. In this perspective, we caution against premature or top-down characterizations of areas as uninhabitable, or portrayals of large-scale climate-induced displacement as inevitable—particularly when the perspectives and preferences of affected populations are excluded. While we recognize the importance of modelling and scenario-building to assess future risks, we argue that such efforts must be grounded in local realities and include diverse forms of knowledge. Habitability is not determined by climate alone, but emerges from intersecting environmental, political, economic, and cultural dynamics—including governance, inequality, and historical injustice. Framings that do not consider this risk producing two problematic outcomes: first, by prematurely defining areas as uninhabitable, they may undermine the legitimacy of in-situ adaptation and the agency of affected communities; second, when modelling or the use of modelling results does not consider local context, it may inadvertently contribute to narratives portraying climate-induced mass displacement as inevitable, reinforcing deterministic understandings of migration and overlooking the complex drivers of mobility and immobility. To counter these risks, we propose five guiding recommendations: (1) avoid declaring hard limits to habitability without inclusive, context-specific assessments; (2) treat model-based projections as possible, not predetermined futures; (3) reject simplistic global North/South assumptions in assessing vulnerability and mobility; (4) uphold people’s right to remain, alongside the right to move; and (5) prioritize investment in in-situ adaptation that addresses structural inequalities. These principles aim to inform more reflexive and justice-oriented approaches to climate mobility and habitability research—approaches that recognize lived experiences, engage diverse knowledge systems, and help secure equitable futures for those most exposed to environmental change.

Human migration has long been a type of adaptive response to climatic conditions and environmental pressures. However, anthropogenic climate change threatens to exacerbate vulnerabilities and impact adaptive capacity. Climate change impacts human mobility by way of long-term climate processes as well as sudden events whose intensity and frequency are exacerbated. Climate-related mobilities include the range of outcomes that result from climate change’s impacts on human mobility. The effects of climate change on human mobility are diverse. They include various types of movement, including movement within borders as well as external or cross-border movement. Such mobility outcomes also include various degrees of agency in whether people can choose to move. Furthermore, climate change can impact whether humans will move more or will move less. Instances of immobility also vary with regards to agency in decision making, with some populations choosing to stay in vulnerable locations while others may be “trapped.” Vulnerability and adaptive capacity under conditions of climate change depends on the interaction of climate impacts with political social, cultural, economic, and additional factors. The heterogeneity of climate-related mobility outcomes and the difficulty in determining the scale and scope of the impact on human well-being raises a number of practical and normative challenges. The chapter examines and compares a range of normative frameworks that address the moral problem of climate change’s impacts on human mobility. These approaches articulate the nature of the moral problem, identify the rights that are violated and the associated harms of displacement, and identify correlative obligations to those who are vulnerable to climate-related impacts. The chapter concludes by suggesting further directions normative theorizing about climate-related mobilities can take considering the complex challenges the phenomena poses for the international state system.

Territory loss and uninhabitability characterize the current environmental background conditions of the international state system. Such conditions present pressing moral questions about our obligations to protect those who are displaced by anthropogenic climate change. By virtue of our participation in the territorial state system, understood as a social practice, we have principled grounds to address some of the consequences of the uninhabitability conditions brought on by climate change. By assuming territorial instability and employing a practice-based method of justification we can identify a fundamental, basic right protected under the state system – the right to a livable locality – which grounds a moral obligation to protect against climate change-induced displacement. Assuming territorial instability and uninhabitability compels us to recognize that the causes generating climate-displacement are not merely natural but rather deeply political and that displacement is a foreseeable failure that results because of the state system’s organizational structure.