{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02631578947368421, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019963702359346643, 'mean_word_length': 5.027322404371585, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ioane Teitiota v New Zealand (advance unedited version), CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016, UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), 7 January 2020

A 2019 decision by the Human Rights Committee concerning the status of Teitiota and his family as “climate change refugee” in New Zealand has become a hotspot for discussion concerning application of the principle of non-refoulement under human rights treaties. The decision concludes that there may be circumstances where the principle of non-refoulement under human rights treaties may apply to people fleeing climate change in their country of origin, if the people are able to provide evidence on “imminent threat to life.” While the Committee did not recognize Teitiota and his family as climate change refugees, under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it also ruled that this case may open pathways for application of non-refoulement in future. The author analyzes the key elements of the decision, while also highlighting that the Committee failed to apply the “best interest of the child” principle under analysis of Article 6.