Where the Shore Once Was: Legal Identity, Cultural Memory, and Self-Determination in a Climate-Changed World

Author: Sarisha Harikrishna

January 6, 2026

Demonstrators dressed in indigenous clothing hold anti-climate change placards. [Image credit: Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/Lightrocket via Getty Images]

Climate Displacement and the Threat of Statelessness

Between the slow and almost imperceptible violence of rising seas and the immediate, destabilizing urgency of mass displacement, climate change has asserted itself not merely as an environmental issue confined to the natural sciences. It is one of the most profound and multifaceted challenges of the twenty-first century, simultaneously debilitating ecological systems, undermining global security, and threatening cultural continuity. In doing so, it forces a radical reconsideration of the legal and political frameworks through which nationhood, belonging and identity is defined. Global warming has accelerated since the Industrial Revolution primarily due to human activity. Large-scale burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, urbanization, and industrial agriculture have driven an unprecedented rise in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases collectively act as a thermal blanket trapping solar radiation, disrupting the Earth’s radiative balance, and generating a cascade of consequences that affect all dimensions of human and ecological life. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that global mean surface temperatures have already risen by approximately 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This warming is not only negatively impacting weather patterns but also accelerating the melting of polar ice sheets and glaciers, intensifying thermal expansion of the oceans, and driving sea levels upward at a rate without precedent in human history. Projections indicate that, depending on emissions trajectories, global sea levels could rise between 0.6 and 1.1 meters by the end of the century, with some regional estimates considerably higher. Such increases would place the 680 million people who currently reside in low-lying coastal zones at risk and threaten the very existence of entire sovereign states such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Maldives, where maximum natural elevation are often barely two meters above sea level. The key distinguishing factor of this crisis from prior historical episodes of migration or displacement is that the physical disappearance of habitable territory does not merely create humanitarian emergencies of food insecurity or housing instability, but fundamentally unsettles the legal architecture of the international system itself.

International law has long presumed that statehood requires a clearly outlined and stable territory upon which a permanent population resides and from which a government exercises effective control. According to a study performed by the International Law Commission (ILC) study group, this assumption, expressly codified in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) does not address nor answer the question of the continuity of statehood in the context of climate change-related sea-level rise. The ILC’s proposed solution of ‘the preservation of maritime zones’ aims to freeze maritime boundaries, implicitly supporting the continuity of statehood as a myth. To illustrate, the concept of a ‘digital nation’ can be seen as a mechanism to sustain the Montevideo criteria of ‘government’ and ‘permanent population’ through digital citizenship. This uncertainty has led to a plethora of grey areas in the law, particularly regarding the loss of other facets that make up a state such as government, population, and independence. A loss of one’s homeland would leave their populations in a condition that the current refugee regime (shaped by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol) is structurally unprepared to address. This is due to the fact that such instruments do not recognize environmental degradation or climate change as grounds for refugee status. At this juncture, it is imperative to point out that the implications of statelessness affect the survival of cultural memory, language, spiritual traditions and collective identity; all of which are deeply embedded in physical geographies that anchor a people’s sense of belonging and continuity across generations. 

This article therefore seeks to examine how the intertwined challenges of climate displacement and statelessness reshape questions of legal identity, the preservation of cultural memory, and the pursuit of self-determination, while evaluating the adequacy of existing international legal frameworks in addressing the unprecedented realities of a climate-changed world. 

Cultural Memory as the Anchor of Identity

The impacts of climate change on vulnerable nations cannot be understood solely through the lens of material loss. When land is submerged, cultural memory erodes as well. This memory forms the foundation of collective identity and serves as the primary means by which displaced people sustain continuity across generations. Cultural memory, as theorized by Jan Assmann (1995), is not simply the recollection of past events but an institutionalized form of remembrance, embedded in practices, rituals, languages, and landscapes. Through these facets,  communities reproduce a shared understanding of who they are and where they belong. Unlike individual memory, cultural memory is collective, stable, enduring and is passed down through generations, becoming a huge part of an individual’s identity and sense of self. Evidence from climate-vulnerable regions support this assertion of a looming threat. 

In the Pacific Islands, rising sea levels have already begun to inundate burial grounds, temples, and community halls, erasing important tangible sites that embody historical continuity and serve as focal points of oral tradition. In Kiribati, saltwater intrusion has destroyed taro pits that are central not only to food security, but also to cultural practices tied to subsistence and ancestral knowledge. In Bangladesh, where one in seven citizens is projected to be displaced by 2050 due to sea-level rise, the erosion of villages along the Brahmaputra delta is not only uprooting livelihoods, but also dismantling kinship networks, religious institutions, and local histories that are inseparable from place. Similarly, among Native communities in Alaska such as the Shishmaref and Kivalina, forced relocation driven by coastal erosion has disrupted subsistence practices and seasonal migrations. This in turn erodes cultural knowledge systems built over centuries of lived interaction with fragile Arctic ecosystems. These instances illustrate the inextricable link between physical landscapes and ecological rhythms, highlighting that a destruction of one’s homeland means the imminent destruction of their culture. To exemplify this, sacred sites, burial grounds and oral traditions tied to a culture that relies heavily on fishing practices as a way of life , all function as living archives that embody the continuity of a people. 

Beyond the regions that are typically included in the mainstream narrative, it is important to address the lesser known communities that are facing equally profound disruptions. For example, advancing desertification in the Sahel region of Africa has displaced communities such as the Tuareg, whose nomadic traditions, oral epics, and indigenous ecological knowledge systems are inseparable from the desert landscapes they traverse. As grazing lands shrink and water resources dry up, these communities face not only the collapse of livelihoods, but also the disintegration of memory practices embedded in seasonal mobility and intertribal exchange. Similarly, in the Andean highlands of Peru and Bolivia, the accelerated retreat of glaciers threatens ritual practices associated with apu, sacred mountain spirits central to Quechua and Aymara cosmologies. Anthropological perspectives reveal that glacier-fed lakes are not merely water sources, but ritual sites where offerings were made to to maintain harmony with the natural world. 

The aftermath of losing one’s homeland also entails difficult questions such as the preservation of cultural heritage, and this complexity can be seen in practice with  the 2016 relocation of the Isle de Jean Charles Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw tribe in Louisiana, the first federally funded climate resettlement in the United States. Some tribal leaders argued that relocation risks accelerating cultural loss by severing younger generations from the land-based practices of their elders, while others frame it as an opportunity to reconstitute identity in the diaspora, provided that cultural institutions are intentionally safeguarded. This tension reflects a broader perspective emerging among climate-displaced people, which is that while physical territory may vanish, the survival of identity depends on whether cultural memory and heritage can be mobilized as political resources to demand recognition. In this sense, the struggle against climate-induced statelessness is not only about where displaced people can live, but also about whether they are acknowledged as coherent nations whose cultural continuity warrants protection under international law. 

Indigenous family in the Arctic region of Russia [Image source: https://curesblog.lmu.edu/impact-of-climate-change-on-indigenous-peoples/ ]

The Limits of International Law in a Climate-Changed World: The 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion

Despite the numerous advancements made in international climate law to address the multifaceted challenges posed by climate-induced displacement, there is still much work that needs to be done. The 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change was hailed as a groundbreaking moment by climate activists for its authoritative clarification of state duties. While advisory opinions are not binding in the same manner as contentious judgments, they carry immense legal weight and interpretative authority. The Court affirmed that the 1.5 degree Celsius temperature target reflects a core obligation of the Paris Agreement (para 457(f)). By framing these climate obligations as clear legal duties, the Court elevates environmental protection to a matter of fundamental legal morality. In particular, all states, especially the ones contributing higher emissions into the atmosphere, have a positive obligation to properly mitigate the effects of climate change. By framing climate obligations as enforceable duties, the Court elevates environmental protection to the level of legal morality, yet simultaneously fails to confront the unsettling question of what becomes of the people whose very land disappears. International law, predicated on territorial permanence, offers no framework to recognize states that vanish beneath rising seas or populations rendered stateless by environmental catastrophe. In this sense, the Advisory Opinion showcases how the law can compel action but still remains blind to the realities of obliterated homelands and the human identities intertwined with them. The opinion also illuminates profound ethical tensions, such as calling for cooperation between high-emission and vulnerable states, yet it leaves undefined the scale and enforceability of these obligations, implicitly relying on voluntary compliance. 

By emphasizing mitigation over protection, the law inadvertently shows that it privileges the preservation of ecology over the survival of communities, raising the unsettling possibility that international legal norms may articulate rights while failing to protect the subjects of those rights. Moreover, the opinion exposes a glaring fracture at the heart of international law, as the sovereignty of states are defined by physical territory, yet, climate change produces communities whose identity, culture and governance are detached from land. On its surface, the Advisory Opinion may seem like a comprehensive legislative guideline, however upon closer inspection, it is lacking in the most vital areas, such as only addressing human rights obligations in an abstract way, completely omitting any discussion on cultural heritage, intersectionality, poverty and its treatment of indigenous rights. 

In providing his separate opinion to this Advisory Opinion, Judge Charlesworth emphasized that,

“States have a particular obligation to protect the human rights of vulnerable groups…which requires close attention to the potentially discriminatory effects of measures taken to respond to climate change.”

However, this statement evidently has not been reflected by the majority judgment in the aforementioned case, an avenue that would have provided a proper baseline for the rest of the world to abide by. Although the Advisory Opinion, when read in its entirety, is not legally binding, its effect is consequential, and there is an imminent possibility of the threat of exposure to litigation challenges in national courts. This may increase pressure on domestic courts to penalize governments to increase their efforts in addressing emissions and embody the very essence of the treaty that they had signed. 

Another angle that has generated significant discourse in the wake of this landmark judgment is on the issue of reparations, which are defined as measures that a state must undertake to remedy an internationally wrongful act., They include restitution, compensation, and satisfaction, aiming to return the aggrieved state to the position it would have been if the wrongful event had not occurred. Reparations are a fundamental feature of international law, and historically have been used to provide compensation that is proportionate to the harm suffered by survivors in international human rights law. In the climate Advisory Opinion, the ICJ did acknowledge the possibility of reparations being afforded to victims of climate displacement, though briefly. As Judge Sebutinde clarified in her separate opinion, the Court made no mention as to the standing of individuals or collectives who bring claims concerning the legal responsibility of States, emphasizing that this is dependent on the existing human rights treaties. In comparison to the more creative  approach employed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), it is expected that reparations awarded by the IACtHR in cases of climate change in that jurisdiction would be worth looking into.

Hope for the Future? Reimagining Self-Determination Beyond Territory

If the foundations of international law continue to rest on land as the anchor of identity, climate-displaced people will be left legally invisible. To avoid this, three steps deserve urgent consideration. First, the concept of deterritorialized nationhood should be recognized, such as the idea of “digital nations”, which preserve government functions, citizenship registries, and cultural archives online to ensure continuity of statehood even if the territory becomes uninhabitable. This preserves its legal personality under international law even as physical territory is lost. Next, mobile sovereignty mechanisms could be institutionalized. This concept finds a loose analogue in the international law doctrine of governments-in-exile and would allow displaced governments to retain seats at the UN and, critically, to maintain the maritime zones as potentially ‘frozen’ under the proposed ILC principles and UNCLOS, thus preserving a critical economic and legal attribute of statehood. This allows displaced governments to retain seats at the UN, negotiate treaties, and manage maritime zones, much like governments-in-exile once did during wartime. Third, diaspora-based self-determination should be embraced, treating communities abroad not as scattered individuals but as collective political entities capable of sustaining language, traditions, and decision-making across borders. 

Territory may drown, but their people do not have to disappear with it. The real challenge is whether international law will adapt quickly enough to recognize nations beyond borders or whether it will let them vanish from its maps. Hope still lies in treating self-determination not as a relic of territory, but as the enduring right of communities to exist, to remember, and to decide their own futures in a climate-changed world. 

---

Glossary

• Aggrieved: Unhappy and angry because of unfair treatment. 

• Anthropogenic: Caused by humans or their activities.

• Anthropology: The study of the human race, its culture and society, and its physical development.

• Climate change: A change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. 

• Climate-induced statelessness: People becoming or at risk of becoming stateless due to climate change impacts, which can lead to the physical disappearance of a nation, displacement, loss of civil documentation, or erosion of legal frameworks. 

• Climate resettlement: The permanent relocation of communities or individuals to safer areas due to severe and long-term environmental changes and climate impacts. 

• Climate-vulnerable regions: Places and communities with high exposure to climate change impacts, high sensitivity to these impacts, and low adaptive capacity to cope with or recover from them. 

• Coastal erosion: A natural process where soil, sand, and bedrock are worn away from the land by the sea. 

• Consequential: Happening as a result of something. 

• Cultural continuity: The preservation and maintenance of traditional beliefs, customs, and practices within a society over time, often passed down through generations. It plays a crucial role in shaping collective identity, providing communities with a sense of stability and historical context. 

• Cultural institutions: Organizations that work to preserve, interpret, and promote a culture’s history, knowledge, and creative expressions for the public. 

• Deforestation: The cutting down of trees in a large area, or the destruction of forests by people. 

• Desertification: The process by which land changes to desert, for example because there has been too much farming activity on it or because a lot of trees have been cut down.

• Deterritorialized nationhood: Also known as ex-situ nationhood, it is a status that allows for the continued existence of a sovereign state, afforded all of the rights and benefits of sovereignty amongst the family of states, in perpetuity. 

• Diaspora: A group of people who spread from one original country to other countries, or the act of spreading in this way.

• Domestic courts: A nation’s own courts of law, established within its borders to handle cases involving local laws and regulations, and to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights. 

• Ecological rhythms: The predictable, recurring patterns in nature that influence and orchestrate life on Earth. 

• Ecological systems: A community of living organisms (biotic factors) interacting with their physical environment (abiotic factors) as a single, interconnected unit. 

• Exacerbate: To make something that is already bad even worse.

• Food insecurity: The fact that a person or family is not always able to get enough food. 

• Forced relocation: The involuntary or coerced movement of people from their homes due to factors like persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations, or environmental disasters such as climate change or famine. 

• Glacier-fed lakes: Body of water that receives its primary input from the melting of a glacier or ice, filling the space created by the glacier’s erosion, or by the glacier acting as a natural dam. 

• Global security: Protection of the world against war and other threats. 

• Governments-in-exile: An individual or a group of individuals who reside within the territory of a foreign State after being forced to leave their homeland due to enemy occupation or possibly civil war. 

• Habitable: Providing conditions that are good enough to live in or on. 

• Historical continuity: The persistence or uninterrupted duration of certain cultural, social, political, religious elements over time, despite other changes occurring in a society or region. 

• Housing instability: A lack of consistent and secure housing, characterized by challenges like paying rent, frequent involuntary moves, poor housing quality, overcrowded living conditions, or living in emergency/temporary shelters. 

• Imminent: Coming or likely to happen very soon. 

• Imperative: Extremely important or urgent.

• Imperceptible: Unable to be noticed or felt because of being very slight.

• Inadvertently: In a way that is not intentional. 

• Inextricable: Unable to be separated, released or escaped from. 

• Institutionalized: To establish something as part of a culture, social system, or organization. 

• International legal norms: The rules, principles, customs, and standards that govern the behaviour and interactions between states and other international actors, establishing a shared framework for their mutual relations and a common understanding of expected conduct in global affairs. 

• Intersectionality: The complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination such as racism, sexism and classism combine, overlap, or intersect especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups. 

• Intertribal exchange: The exchange of goods and services between different tribes, which plays a significant role in their economic systems and trade networks. 

• Kinship networks: The system of social relationships and connections within an extended family or group of people who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption. 

• Legal architecture: Refers to the framework of international law, such as treaties, conventions, principles, and the institutions that regulate how states interact, define sovereignty, recognize borders, and handle issues like citizenship, migration, and refugees. 

• Legal identity: A fundamental human right, recognizing an individual through official documents like a birth certificate, national ID, or passport allowing them to access services, assert rights, and be protected by the state. 

• Legally invisible: People or entities lacking formal recognition by the law, preventing them from having rights, responsibilities, or legal protection, often due to statelessness or a lack of identification documents.  

• Legal morality: Also known as legal moralism, this is a philosophical theory holding that laws can and should enforce moral standards, allowing society to prohibit behaviours deemed immoral, even if they don’t directly harm others. 

• Legislative guideline: A set of rules or principles provided by a government or governing body to guide the interpretation and application of laws, rather than being a law itself. 

• Litigation: The process of taking a case to a court of law so that a judgment can be made. 

• Maritime zones: Designated areas of the ocean and seabed over which a coastal state exercises varying degrees of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and rights as defined by international law, primarily the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 

• Mass displacement: The forced movement of large numbers of people from their homes, most often due to conflict, natural disasters, human rights violations, or climate change.  

• National courts: The judicial systems of sovereign states, acting as the primary arbiters of their domestic laws and applying them to specific cases and citizens within their borders. 

• Nomadic traditions: The cultural practices, customs, and beliefs characteristic of communities that regularly move from place to place rather than settling permanently in one location. 

• Oral epics: A long narrative poem about heroic figures and historical events, transmitted from generation to generation through performance rather than writing. 

• Plethora: A very large amount of something, especially a larger amount than you need, want, or can deal with. 

• Political resources: Anything that can be used to influence a political outcome. 

• Mobile sovereignty: The ability of actors, such as states, companies, or even individuals, to maintain control and autonomy amidst increasing global and digital mobility, often in areas like data, technology, or the management of movement across borders. 

• Relic: An object, tradition, or system from the past that continues to exist.

• Self-determination: Determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status. 

• Sovereign states: A state with a defined territory that administers its own government and is not subject to or dependent on another power. 

• Statehood: The status of being a recognized independent nation.

• Statelessness: A person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law. 

• Subsistence: The state of having what you need in order to stay alive, but no more.

• Taro pits: Deep holes on Kiribati and other small island nations that hold stagnant, muddy water to grow the starchy root crop giant swamp taro. 

• Territorial permanence: The permanency of an individual or group’s territory. 

• Unprecedented: Never having happened or existed in the past.

• Urbanization: The increase in the proportion of people living in towns and cities. 

---

References

1. Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, ICJ Advisory Opinion <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf> accessed 25 September 2025.

2.  Mike Bowers, ‘Waiting for the tide to turn: Kiribati’s fight for survival’ (The Guardian, 23 October 2017) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/23/waiting-for-the-tide-to-turn-kiribatis-fight-for-survival> accessed 26 September 2025.

3. Jonathan Watts, ‘We could lose our status as a state’: what happens to a people when their land disappears’ (The Guardian, 27 June 2023) < https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/27/we-could-lose-our-status-as-a-state-what-happens-to-a-people-when-their-land-disappears> accessed 29 September 2025. 

4. Jason Collins, ‘Climate Change Catastrophe: The Disappearance of Ancestral Graves in the Pacific Islands’ (TalkDeath, 19 August 2025) <https://talkdeath.com/climate-change-catastrophe-the-disappearance-of-ancestral-graves-in-the-pacific-islands/> accessed 30 September 2025. 

5. Kitty Mant, Jaynisha Patel and Sandun Munasinghe, ‘From Crisis to Conflict: Climate Change and Violent Extremism in the Sahel’ (TBI, 28 November 2024) <https://institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/from-crisis-to-conflict-climate-change-and-violent-extremism-in-the-sahel> accessed 28 September 2025. 

6. Randall S. Abate and Aashini Choksi, ‘Coastal Migration With Dignity: Safeguards for Vulnerable Communities’ (GW Law, 2024) <https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3045&context=faculty_publications> accessed 28 September 2025. 

7. Rebecca Lindsey, ‘Climate Change: Global Sea Level’ (NDAA, 22 August 2023) <https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3045&context=faculty_publications> accessed 27 September 2025.

8. International Law Commission, Final report of the Study Group on sea-level rise in relation to international law <https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/reports/8_9_2025.pdf> accessed 28 September 2025.

9. Avidan Kent and Zana Syla, ‘These countries are sinking into the sea. What happens when they disappear forever?’ (Independent News, 29 August 2025) <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/climate-change-un-maldives-kiribati-islands-states-icj-b2816719.html> accessed 28 September 2025. 

10. United Nations, ‘Climate Change’ <https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/climate-change> accessed 27 September 2025. 

11. Qi Zhao, ‘Global climate change and human health: Pathways and possible solutions’ (ScienceDirect, June 2022) <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772985022000072> accessed 28 September 2025.