Free University Press

Transboundary solutions for climate-displaced species: A legal imperative for ecological resilience #

Rawnak Miraj Ul Azam1

Abstract: This research addresses the critical legal void surrounding climate-induced wildlife displacement, a growing ecological crisis. Focusing on the Sundarbans and its iconic Bengal tiger, the study critically analyzes existing international and national legal frameworks, revealing their inadequacy in protecting species forced to migrate due to climate change. It advocates for a paradigm shift toward ecological justice, proposing the recognition of legal personhood for displaced species and the development of species-specific transboundary legal frameworks.

The research also examines the integration of species displacement into climate policies and emphasizes corporate accountability for environmental harm. Ultimately, it calls for a holistic, species-centric approach to ensure ecological resilience in a changing climate.

Keywords: climate displacement, species rights, ecological justice, transboundary conservation, legal personhood.

AI use disclosure statement: In the process of preparing the manuscript, language and readability improvement tools powered by artificial intelligence were used. Grammarly was used for checking grammar, spelling, and punctuation, while QuillBot was used for paraphrasing and sentence structure improvement to enhance clarity and flow. Their use was limited to improving the linguistic aspects of the content and did not influence the original research, content, or analytical arguments presented in the paper. The writer assures that the research, concepts, and findings provided are his own.

I. Introduction #

The escalating impacts of climate change are not confined to human societies; they are profoundly reshaping the natural world, triggering unprecedented levels of wildlife displacement. This phenomenon, characterized by the forced migration of species due to habitat degradation, altered resource availability, and extreme weather events, represents a critical ecological injury demanding urgent legal attention. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022) signifies the severity of this crisis, highlighting the increasing frequency and intensity of climate-related disruptions that are pushing numerous species beyond their tolerance thresholds. This is further supported by studies that show a globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). Understanding climate-induced wildlife displacement goes beyond merely documenting animal movement; it involves recognizing the systemic breakdown of ecological relationships and the erosion of biodiversity integrity. Unlike traditional habitat loss, which often results from localized human activities, climate-induced displacement is a consequence of global environmental change, necessitating a fundamental shift in legal paradigms.  

This research focuses on the Sundarbans, a unique mangrove ecosystem shared by India and Bangladesh, and its iconic inhabitant, the Bengal tiger, as a compelling case study. While the Bengal tiger holds significant cultural importance, its selection is primarily driven by its vulnerability to climate change impacts, serving as an indicator species for broader ecological challenges. It is vital to acknowledge potential criticism around the cultural significance of the tiger and clarify that the animal is being used as a case study, and the research is not meant to be anthropocentric. The Sundarbans ecosystem is experiencing accelerated sea-level rise, increased salinity, and more frequent cyclones, all of which directly impact the habitat and survival of the Bengal tiger (Ghosh et al., 2016).

Existing international legal frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973), and the Ramsar Convention (1971), while essential for biodiversity conservation, fall short in addressing the specific challenges of climate-driven displacement. These frameworks primarily focus on habitat protection within static boundaries and lack explicit provisions for managing species on the move due to climate change. This gap in legal literature necessitates a rights-based approach that acknowledges the intrinsic value of displaced species and their right to a viable habitat (Azam, Zerin, et al., 2025b).

This research aims to address the following central question: Can international and national legal frameworks be reformed to recognize and protect climate-displaced wildlife, specifically focusing on the legal status of the displaced species rather than the broader ecosystem, and what are the specific legal mechanisms to implement such protection? To achieve this, several specific objectives have been outlined: (a) to critically analyze existing legal frameworks, focusing on their direct relevance to displaced species and using recent, relevant sources; (b) to explore ecological justice principles, emphasizing their application to displaced species rather than general ecosystem rights; (c) to develop a specific, practical transboundary legal framework for India and Bangladesh, with a focus on investment law perspectives and species protection; (d) to examine corporate accountability, clarifying the relevance of ecocide laws and focusing on direct impacts on displaced species; (e) to clarify the distinction between ecological and environmental law, justifying the use of the former; (f) to elaborate on the interaction between law and ethics in the context of wildlife displacement; and (g) to integrate traditional knowledge specifically in relation to how it helps answer the research question.

The methodology employed in this study is grounded in doctrinal legal research, utilizing a critical perspective that examines the underlying assumptions and power dynamics within existing legal frameworks. This perspective draws on the insights of scholars like Ann Orford, who advocates for an understanding of legal discourse (Orford, 2003). Comparative legal analysis is employed to examine the legal frameworks of India and Bangladesh, focusing on their specific provisions for wildlife protection and climate change adaptation. The selection of these jurisdictions is based on their shared ecosystem and the unique challenges they face in managing transboundary wildlife displacement. The inclusion of cases from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is justified by their relevance in establishing legal injury and state responsibility in the context of climate change, which provides a foundation for extending similar principles to displaced species. The Sundarbans case study serves as an illustrative example, highlighting the practical challenges of protecting displaced species in a dynamic and transboundary ecosystem. Finally, an interdisciplinary approach is adopted, integrating insights from climate science, ecology, and legal theory to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem.

This study is structured as follows: Section II critically analyzes the legal lacuna in existing frameworks, focusing on a species-centric perspective. Section III explores ecological justice and species rights, proposing a new legal paradigm. Section IV examines the Sundarbans case study, highlighting the challenges and opportunities for species protection. Section V proposes specific legal reforms, including legal personhood for displaced species, a transboundary legal framework, and corporate accountability. Finally, Section VI concludes the study, summarizing the findings and outlining future research directions

The current international legal landscape, while possessing frameworks aimed at biodiversity conservation, reveals a significant lacuna when scrutinized through a species-centric lens, particularly concerning climate-induced displacement. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992), a cornerstone of global biodiversity protection, primarily focuses on habitat conservation and sustainable use. However, its provisions lack explicit mechanisms for addressing species forced to migrate due to climate change. The CBD’s emphasis on in-situ conservation often fails to account for the dynamic nature of climate impacts, which can render habitats unsuitable for species survival. The Aichi Biodiversity Targets, while ambitious, have largely fallen short of their goals, highlighting the implementation gap and the convention’s limited capacity to adapt to rapid environmental changes (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020). Moreover, the CBD’s focus on national sovereignty can impede transboundary cooperation, crucial for managing migratory species.

Similarly, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973) primarily regulates the international trade of endangered species. While essential in combating illegal wildlife trade, CITES does not address the root causes of species displacement, such as habitat destruction and climate change. Its listing mechanisms are often slow and politically influenced, failing to respond rapidly to emerging threats. Additionally, CITES relies heavily on national enforcement, leading to inconsistencies and gaps in protection, especially in developing nations facing resource constraints.

The Ramsar Convention (1971), aimed at wetland conservation, faces similar limitations. Wetlands, crucial habitats for numerous species, are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts like sea-level rise and altered hydrological regimes. The Ramsar Convention lacks specific guidelines for managing these dynamic changes, limiting its effectiveness in protecting climate-vulnerable species.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) and the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015), while addressing climate change, primarily focus on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting human societies. Biodiversity concerns, including species displacement, are often relegated to secondary considerations. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) vary significantly in their integration of biodiversity, with many countries failing to include specific measures for protecting vulnerable species or ecosystems. The absence of a robust international framework specifically addressing climate-induced species displacement highlights the urgent need for legal reform.

Moving to national legal frameworks, a comparative analysis of India’s Wildlife Protection Act (WPA, 1972) and Bangladesh’s Wildlife Conservation and Security Act (WCSA, 2012) reveals similar shortcomings. Both acts, while providing legal protection for wildlife, are fundamentally rooted in a static understanding of ecosystems. The WPA, for instance, focuses on delineating protected areas and regulating hunting and trade but lacks provisions for managing species forced to migrate due to climate change. Case studies within India, such as the management of protected areas in the Sundarbans, illustrate the enforcement challenges and the inability of existing laws to address dynamic climate impacts (Das et al., 2018). Similarly, the WCSA, despite its more recent enactment, suffers from similar limitations, lacking specific provisions for climate-induced displacement and facing enforcement challenges due to resource constraints and governance issues.

The static nature of these laws becomes particularly problematic in the context of climate change, which is rapidly altering habitats and forcing species to migrate beyond traditional boundaries. The failure to account for these dynamic changes renders existing legal frameworks inadequate for protecting displaced species. This is further compounded by the absence of effective transboundary cooperation mechanisms, as illustrated by the challenges of managing the Sundarbans ecosystem, which spans across India and Bangladesh. The lack of harmonized policies and coordinated enforcement hinders the ability to protect species that migrate across borders, such as the Bengal tiger.

At the core of this legal lacuna lies a fundamental human-centric approach that pervades both international and national legal frameworks. Traditional environmental law has largely adopted a human-centric approach, focusing on the protection of nature for human benefit (Stone, 1972). This approach fails to recognize the intrinsic value of non-human species and their right to a viable habitat. The forced migration of species due to climate change is not recognized as a distinct legal injury, and existing laws lack mechanisms for providing legal protection to displaced species. This human-centric bias is evident in the stark contrast between the legal discourse on human climate refugees and the neglect of displaced wildlife. While international bodies and legal scholars debate the rights and protections afforded to humans forced to migrate due to climate change (McAdam, 2012), animals facing similar displacement are left in a legal void.

To address this gap, a shift towards ecological justice is imperative. Ecological justice extends the concept of justice beyond human societies to include ecosystems and species, recognizing their intrinsic value and right to exist (Schlosberg, 2007). In the context of displaced species, this requires acknowledging their right to a viable habitat and developing legal mechanisms to protect them from the adverse impacts of climate change. This shift necessitates a fundamental reevaluation of existing legal frameworks, moving away from a human-centric approach towards a species-centric paradigm that recognizes the interconnectedness of all life and the need for a holistic approach to environmental protection.

III. Ecological justice and species rights: A new paradigm #

The limitations of existing legal frameworks in addressing climate-induced wildlife displacement necessitate a paradigm shift toward a more ecologically just approach. This section explores the principles of ecological justice and their application to displaced species, arguing for the recognition of species’ rights and analyzing relevant case law that supports this paradigm shift. (Azam, Islam, et al., 2025)

3.1. Defining ecological justice for displaced species #

Ecological justice, at its core, expands the traditional concept of justice beyond human societies to encompass the well-being of the non-human world (Schlosberg, 2007). Unlike environmental justice, which primarily focuses on the fair distribution of environmental burdens and benefits among human populations, ecological justice recognizes the intrinsic value of ecosystems and individual species, independent of their utility to humans (Taylor, 1986). In the context of displaced species, ecological justice demands that we acknowledge their right to a viable habitat and protect them from the adverse impacts of climate change that force them to migrate. This recognition of intrinsic value is crucial.

Displaced species are not merely passive victims of climate change; they are active participants in the web of life, each playing a vital role in maintaining ecosystem integrity. Their displacement disrupts ecological relationships, leading to cascading effects that can threaten entire ecosystems (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009). Therefore, protecting displaced species is not just a matter of ethical concern but also a matter of ecological necessity.

The ethical basis for protecting displaced species rests on several interconnected principles. First, the principle of respect for nature posits that all living beings, including displaced species, possess inherent worth and are entitled to moral consideration (Taylor, 1986). This principle challenges the anthropocentric view that only humans have moral standing and calls for a biocentric approach that values all life forms. Second, the principle of non-maleficence dictates that humans have a duty to avoid causing harm to other species. Climate change, largely driven by human activities, inflicts significant harm on displaced species by destroying their habitats and disrupting their survival. Therefore, humans have an ethical obligation to mitigate these impacts and protect vulnerable species.

The interconnectedness of ecosystems further reinforces the need for ecological justice. Displaced species are not isolated entities; they are integral components of complex ecological networks. Their survival depends on the health and stability of the ecosystems they inhabit, and their displacement can have far-reaching consequences for the functioning of these ecosystems (Berkes, 2012). For instance, the displacement of a keystone species, such as a top predator, can disrupt trophic cascades, leading to imbalances in prey populations and alterations in vegetation structure. Similarly, the loss of pollinators can affect plant reproduction and biodiversity. Therefore, an ecological approach recognizes that protecting displaced species requires a holistic understanding of ecosystem dynamics and the interconnectedness of all living beings (Azam, Zerin, et al., 2025a).

The concept of legal personhood, traditionally reserved for humans and certain human-created entities like corporations, is increasingly being considered as a tool for protecting the environment and its inhabitants. Granting legal personhood to natural entities, such as rivers, forests, and even individual species, would confer upon them certain rights and the ability to be represented in legal proceedings.

While the idea of legal personhood for ecosystems has gained traction, its application to individual displaced species presents both opportunities and challenges. The Whanganui River case in New Zealand is a landmark example of granting legal personhood to a natural entity (New Zealand Parliament, 2017). The Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 recognized the Whanganui River as an indivisible and living whole, with the same legal status as a person. Two individuals were appointed as guardians of the river, with the responsibility to act in its best interests. While this case focused on a river ecosystem, its underlying principles can be extended to encompass individual species, particularly those facing displacement due to climate change.

Applying legal personhood to displaced species would entail recognizing their right to a suitable habitat, freedom from harm, and the ability to participate in decisions that affect their well-being. This would require designating legal representatives or guardians to act on behalf of the species, ensuring their interests are considered in policy-making and legal proceedings. For instance, a critically endangered species facing displacement could be granted legal personhood, with a designated guardian empowered to advocate for its protection and habitat restoration.

Arguments in favor of legal personhood for displaced species emphasize its potential to provide a stronger legal basis for their protection (Azam, Zerin, et al., 2025b). By recognizing their inherent rights, legal personhood challenges the prevailing view of animals as mere objects of human concern and elevates their status to subjects of law. This can lead to more effective conservation measures, as the species’ interests would be given greater weight in decision-making processes. Moreover, legal personhood can empower communities and environmental organizations to take legal action on behalf of displaced species, holding governments and corporations accountable for actions that harm their habitats.

However, challenges remain in implementing legal personhood for displaced species. One key challenge is defining the scope of such rights and determining how they would interact with existing legal frameworks. For instance, questions arise regarding the extent to which a species’ rights would override human interests, particularly in situations where habitat restoration or conservation measures may have economic or social costs. Another challenge is determining who should represent the interests of a displaced species and how to ensure that these representatives act in the species’ best interests. Establishing clear guidelines for guardianship and representation would be crucial for preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring accountability.

Despite these challenges, examples from other jurisdictions demonstrate the feasibility of granting legal rights to specific species. In India, for instance, certain animals, such as elephants and tigers, have been recognized as having legal rights in specific contexts, such as protection from cruelty and exploitation. While not full legal personhood, these examples illustrate a growing recognition of the need to protect the interests of individual species within the legal system (Azam, 2025).

3.3. Climate justice and displaced species #

Climate justice, a concept that has primarily focused on the equitable distribution of climate change impacts and mitigation burdens among human populations, must be expanded to include the rights of displaced species. The disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable species, which contribute minimally to greenhouse gas emissions, raises fundamental questions of fairness and justice. Displaced species are often the ’least responsible’ for climate change but bear the brunt of its consequences, highlighting a profound injustice that demands legal and ethical redress.

Expanding climate justice to include displaced species requires acknowledging the concept of ecological debt. Ecological debt refers to the cumulative environmental harm caused by industrialized nations to the rest of the world, including the destruction of habitats and the displacement of species (Martinez-Alier, 2002). Developed nations, with their history of high greenhouse gas emissions and resource extraction, have a disproportionate responsibility for the climate change impacts that are driving species displacement. Recognizing this ecological debt entails acknowledging the moral and legal obligation of these nations to take greater action to mitigate climate change and assist vulnerable species in adapting to its consequences.

Intergenerational equity is another crucial aspect of climate justice that has significant implications for displaced species. The actions taken today to mitigate, or fail to mitigate, climate change will have profound consequences for future generations of both humans and animals. Displaced species, particularly those with long lifespans and slow reproductive rates, face an elevated risk of extinction if climate change continues unabated. Therefore, current generations have a moral and legal duty to act in a way that preserves the Earth’s biodiversity and ensures the survival of these species for generations to come. This requires incorporating the long-term needs of displaced species into climate policy and legal frameworks.

3.4. Relevant case law and precedents #

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007), the United States Supreme Court recognized that states had standing to sue the federal government for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, acknowledging the link between these emissions and climate change impacts. This case established the principle that climate change can cause cognizable harm, a crucial precedent for recognizing the legal injury suffered by displaced species due to habitat loss and ecosystem disruption.

Juliana v. United States (2016), a case brought by young people against the U.S. government, further advanced this principle by arguing that the government’s failure to address climate change violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. While this case primarily focused on human plaintiffs, its emphasis on the government’s duty to protect future generations from climate harm has significant implications for displaced species. The case acknowledges the long-term consequences of climate inaction and the government’s responsibility to safeguard the well-being of future inhabitants of the planet, both human and non-human. The case involves a petition for a writ of certiorari submitted to the Supreme Court, seeking review of a decision rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The litigation originates from an action brought by a cohort of youth plaintiffs against the United States government, centering on allegations that governmental policies and actions have contributed to climate change and infringed upon the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

The petition articulates two central legal questions for consideration by the Supreme Court. The first concerns Article III standing, specifically the element of redressability, within the context of declaratory judgment actions. Petitioners contest the Ninth Circuit’s imposition of a requirement for declaratory judgment claims, asserting its inconsistency with established Supreme Court precedent and conflicting interpretations across circuit courts. The second question addresses the criteria for issuing a writ of mandamus, focusing on the existence of exceptions to the conditions delineated in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. Petitioners highlight a divergence among the circuits on this matter, challenging the Ninth Circuit’s approach. The petitioners advocate for the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari based on the significant importance of the legal issues, the presence of a circuit split, and the alleged errors in the Ninth Circuit’s rulings.

However, the Supreme Court order list dated March 24, 2025, reveals that the Court denied the petition for certiorari in Juliana v. United States. This decision implies that the Supreme Court has chosen not to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, thereby upholding the lower court’s disposition of the case. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands (2019) is another landmark case in which a court ordered the Dutch government to take more ambitious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recognizing its duty of care to protect its citizens from the impacts of climate change. This case established the principle that governments have a legal obligation to prevent foreseeable climate harm, a principle that can be extended to include the protection of vulnerable species threatened by climate change.

While these cases primarily focus on human plaintiffs, they establish important legal precedents that can be used to argue for the rights of displaced species. By recognizing that climate change causes cognizable harm and that governments have a duty to prevent such harm, these cases lay the groundwork for a legal framework that protects not only human interests but also the interests of the non-human world. The recognition of legal injury and state responsibility for climate impacts is a crucial step toward developing legal mechanisms for protecting displaced species and ensuring their survival in a changing climate.

IV. The Sundarbans: A species-centric case study #

The Sundarbans, a vast mangrove forest straddling the border between India and Bangladesh, serves as a critical case study for understanding the complex challenges of climate-induced wildlife displacement. This ecosystem, renowned for its biodiversity, is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, posing a significant threat to its unique species. This section examines the Sundarbans through a species-centric lens, focusing on the impacts of climate change on displaced species, particularly the Bengal tiger, and the need for transboundary cooperation and the integration of local knowledge for effective conservation.

4.1. The Sundarbans: A habitat under threat #

The Sundarbans, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, represents the largest contiguous mangrove forest in the world (UNESCO, n.d.). This unique ecosystem provides crucial habitat for a diverse array of species, including the endangered Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus), and various species of birds, fish, and invertebrates. The mangroves act as a vital buffer against storms, prevent coastal erosion, and support local livelihoods through fisheries and other resources (Mukherjee et al., 2014).

However, the Sundarbans is facing increasing threats from climate change, which are directly impacting the survival and distribution of its species. Sea-level rise is one of the most significant threats to the Sundarbans: the low-lying topography of the delta makes it highly susceptible to inundation, leading to habitat loss and displacement of species. Rising sea levels are causing the erosion of shorelines, the loss of mangrove forests, and the inundation of freshwater habitats, forcing species to migrate to higher ground or adapt to altered conditions (Hazra et al., 2016).

Salinity intrusion is another major consequence of climate change in the Sundarbans. As sea levels rise, saltwater penetrates further inland, increasing the salinity of soil and water. This negatively affects mangrove vegetation, alters habitat structure, and reduces the availability of freshwater resources (Rahman et al., 2019). Many species are sensitive to changes in salinity, and increased salinity can disrupt their physiological processes, leading to reduced reproduction, growth, and survival rates. For example, changes in salinity levels affect the distribution and abundance of fish species, which, in turn, impact the availability of prey for species like the Bengal tiger and estuarine crocodile.

Extreme weather events, such as cyclones and storm surges, are becoming more frequent and intense in the Sundarbans due to climate change (IPCC, 2022). These events cause widespread destruction of habitat, leading to the direct mortality of species and disrupting ecological processes. Cyclones can uproot mangrove trees, destroy nesting sites, and cause flooding that contaminates freshwater sources. The increased frequency and intensity of these events leave species with less time to recover, further exacerbating the impacts of habitat loss and displacement.

The social and economic impacts of climate change on communities in the Sundarbans are also closely intertwined with the survival of displaced species. Local communities depend on the Sundarbans for resources like fish, honey, and timber (Islam et al., 2018). As climate change degrades the ecosystem, these resources become scarcer, increasing competition between humans and wildlife. This can lead to increased human-wildlife conflict, such as attacks on livestock by tigers or conflicts over dwindling fish stocks, further endangering both humans and displaced species.

4.2. The Bengal tiger: A species in crisis #

The Bengal tiger, an apex predator and a flagship species of the Sundarbans, faces a multitude of threats, exacerbated by climate change. Habitat loss is a primary threat, driven by both human activities like deforestation and aquaculture and climate change impacts like sea-level rise and erosion. The loss of mangrove forests reduces the availability of prey and forces tigers to venture closer to human settlements, increasing the risk of human-wildlife conflict (Khan et al., 2011).

Poaching is another significant threat to Bengal tigers. The illegal trade in tiger parts, driven by demand for traditional medicine and other products, continues to be a major concern (Nowell, 2015). Even within protected areas, tigers are vulnerable to poaching, and habitat fragmentation due to climate change can make them even more accessible to poachers.

Human-wildlife conflict is a growing problem in the Sundarbans. As climate change reduces prey availability and degrades tiger habitat, tigers are forced to hunt closer to human settlements, increasing the likelihood of attacks on livestock and humans. This conflict not only poses a threat to human lives and livelihoods but also leads to retaliatory killings of tigers by local communities, further endangering their population.

The combined effects of climate-driven habitat degradation, prey depletion, poaching, and escalating human-wildlife conflict place the Bengal tiger in a precarious situation. Sea-level rise and salinity intrusion reduce the availability of freshwater and alter the composition of prey species, making it harder for tigers to find food (Chowdhury et al., 2018). Extreme weather events like cyclones can directly kill tigers and destroy their habitat, further reducing their population. Together, these pressures highlight the urgent need for effective, species-specific conservation strategies.

4.3. Transboundary challenges and species-focused cooperation #

The Sundarbans’ transboundary nature presents unique challenges for species conservation. The ecosystem spans across India and Bangladesh, and the movement of species, particularly the Bengal tiger, is not confined by national borders. Effective conservation, therefore, requires close cooperation between the two countries.

However, differing national policies, priorities, and resource constraints can hinder collaborative efforts (Roy et al., 2017). Existing conservation efforts, while valuable, often fall short in addressing the specific needs of displaced species. Protected areas, for instance, are often designated based on static boundaries, failing to account for the dynamic shifts in species distribution caused by climate change.

Transboundary species like the Bengal tiger require coordinated management strategies that consider their movement patterns and habitat requirements across the border. To address these challenges, a species-focused approach to transboundary cooperation is essential. This involves the establishment of joint monitoring programs to track species movement and habitat changes, the creation of transboundary wildlife corridors to facilitate migration, and the harmonization of conservation policies and enforcement measures (Saha et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the integration of investment law perspectives can enhance species protection. Development projects in and around the Sundarbans, such as infrastructure development and aquaculture, can have significant impacts on species and their habitats. Therefore, investment policies should incorporate environmental safeguards and promote sustainable practices that minimize harm to species.

Local communities play a crucial role in the conservation of displaced species in the Sundarbans. These communities have a long history of interaction with the ecosystem and possess valuable traditional knowledge about species’ behavior, habitat requirements, and ecological processes (Agrawal, 2005). This knowledge can be invaluable for informing conservation strategies and promoting sustainable resource management. For example, traditional fishing practices, adapted to the tidal flows and seasonal fish migrations, can contribute to sustainable fisheries management and ensure the availability of prey for species like the estuarine crocodile and fish-eating birds. Similarly, traditional honey collection techniques, which minimize disturbance to bee colonies, promote the health of the mangrove forests and the biodiversity they support (Gadgil et al., 2000).

However, the erosion of traditional practices due to modernization and economic pressures poses a threat to both local livelihoods and species conservation. Therefore, it is crucial to integrate local perspectives and traditional knowledge into legal frameworks and management plans. This involves creating participatory mechanisms for resource management, empowering local communities to participate in decision-making, and recognizing their rights to access and manage natural resources in a sustainable manner. By valuing and incorporating local knowledge, conservation efforts can become more effective, equitable, and sustainable, ensuring the long-term survival of both displaced species and the communities that depend on the Sundarbans.

The existing legal frameworks, as discussed earlier, exhibit significant limitations in addressing the unprecedented challenge of climate-induced wildlife displacement. A fundamental overhaul is required, moving beyond piecemeal adjustments to a comprehensive, species-focused legal framework. This section proposes such a framework, encompassing legal personhood for specific displaced species, species-specific transboundary agreements, the integration of species displacement into climate policies, and corporate accountability for species harm.

The dominant legal paradigm, which treats animals as objects of property or resources to be exploited, is a major impediment to their effective protection. Granting legal personhood to specific displaced species offers a radical departure from this paradigm, acknowledging their intrinsic value and enabling them to possess legal rights (Taylor, 1986). This shift is not merely a symbolic gesture; it has profound implications for how we understand our relationship with the non-human world and how we structure our legal systems.

The ethical underpinnings of legal personhood for displaced species lie in the recognition that these species, like humans, are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, suffering, and joy. They possess inherent worth and have a right to exist, flourish, and fulfill their ecological roles, irrespective of their utility to humans. Climate change inflicts severe harm upon these species, disrupting their habitats, forcing them to undertake perilous migrations, and threatening their very survival. By granting them legal personhood, we acknowledge their right to be free from such harm and to have their interests considered in decisions that affect their well-being.

This argument draws upon the biocentric ethic, which extends moral consideration to all living beings, challenging the anthropocentric view that only humans have moral standing. It also aligns with the principles of ecological justice, which seek to redress the injustices inflicted upon the non-human world by human activities. In the context of climate change, ecological justice demands that we recognize the disproportionate impact of climate change on displaced species, who are often the least responsible for its causes but bear the brunt of its consequences.  

Implementing legal personhood for displaced species requires the development of innovative legal mechanisms that can effectively represent and protect their interests. Several potential mechanisms can be considered:

One of the most crucial mechanisms is the designation of legal guardians or representatives to act on behalf of the species. These guardians would be individuals or organizations with expertise in the species’ ecology, behavior, and conservation needs. Their role would be analogous to that of guardians for children or incapacitated adults, with the responsibility to make decisions in the species’ best interests. Guardians could be appointed by the courts, by specialized tribunals, or by independent commissions established for this purpose. They would have legal standing to initiate lawsuits to prevent harm to the species, participate in environmental impact assessments, and advocate for the species’ rights in policy-making processes.

Another important mechanism is the creation of dedicated trusts or funds to manage resources for the protection and restoration of the species’ habitat. These trusts could be funded by government allocations, private donations, or compensation from entities responsible for causing harm to the species. The funds could be used for various purposes, such as habitat acquisition and management, research and monitoring, anti-poaching efforts, and public awareness campaigns.

Granting legal standing to individuals, organizations, and the designated guardians to bring legal action on behalf of the species is essential for ensuring accountability. This would allow them to challenge decisions or actions that threaten the species’ survival or violate their rights. The legal standing should be broad enough to encompass a range of stakeholders, including environmental organizations, indigenous communities, and scientists, who have a legitimate interest in the species’ well-being.

It is crucial to define the specific rights of the species in clear and unambiguous terms in legislation. These rights could include the right to a suitable and sufficient habitat, the right to freedom from pollution and other forms of environmental degradation, the right to access resources necessary for survival, and the right to protection from activities that disrupt their natural behaviors and social structures. The legislation should also establish mechanisms for enforcing these rights and providing remedies for their violation.  

The adoption of legal personhood for displaced species offers several potential benefits: It provides a stronger legal framework for protecting species, as their rights would be legally recognized and enforceable. This would move beyond the current situation where species are often treated as mere objects or resources, subject to human exploitation. It enhances the accountability of corporations and governments for actions that harm species and their habitats. This would create a powerful incentive for more environmentally responsible behavior and discourage activities that contribute to species displacement. It empowers individuals and organizations to advocate for species’ rights and take legal action on their behalf. This would amplify the voices of those who are concerned about the well-being of displaced species and create a more level playing field in legal and political arenas. It promotes a fundamental shift in ethical and cultural attitudes towards the non-human world, recognizing the intrinsic value of all life forms and developing a greater sense of responsibility for their protection.

However, the implementation of legal personhood for displaced species also presents significant challenges:

Determining the precise scope of a species’ rights and how they interact with human interests can be complex. For example, balancing the need to protect a species’ habitat with the economic needs of local communities may require careful consideration and negotiation.

Ensuring that guardians act in the best interests of the species and avoiding conflicts of interest requires careful design of the legal framework and robust oversight mechanisms. The selection, training, and accountability of guardians are crucial aspects that need to be addressed.

Effectively enforcing species’ rights and monitoring compliance with relevant laws and regulations can be challenging, particularly in situations where resources are limited or where there is a lack of political will. International cooperation and the development of robust monitoring technologies may be necessary.

Overcoming societal resistance to the idea of granting legal rights to non-human entities requires a significant shift in cultural norms and values. Public education and awareness campaigns are essential to promote greater understanding and acceptance of this concept.

Climate-induced wildlife displacement often transcends national borders, necessitating the development of species-specific transboundary legal frameworks and enhanced international cooperation. The Sundarbans, with its shared ecosystem and the transboundary movements of species like the Bengal tiger, provides a compelling illustration of this need.

For the Sundarbans, a binding bilateral agreement between India and Bangladesh is essential for the effective conservation of displaced species. While existing agreements may address general environmental concerns, a dedicated treaty focused on the unique challenges of climate-induced displacement is crucial. This agreement should include the following key elements:

Establishing joint scientific monitoring programs to track species populations, movement patterns, and habitat changes across the border. These programs should utilize standardized methodologies and data sharing protocols to ensure consistency and comparability of information. Remote sensing technologies, GPS tracking, and citizen science initiatives can be valuable tools in these efforts. The agreement should also establish mechanisms for sharing resources and expertise.

Creating and managing transboundary wildlife corridors to facilitate the safe and unimpeded movement of species between protected areas in both countries. These corridors should be designed to maintain genetic connectivity, allow species to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and provide access to essential resources.

Implementing coordinated conservation efforts, including joint anti-poaching operations, habitat restoration projects, and community engagement initiatives. This ensures that conservation actions are consistent, effective, and mutually reinforcing across the entire ecosystem.

Harmonizing national laws and policies related to species protection, environmental impact assessment, and resource management. This creates a level playing field for conservation efforts and prevents activities in one country from undermining conservation efforts in the other. The agreement should also address issues such as illegal wildlife trade, pollution, and unsustainable resource extraction.

Defining clear and enforceable mechanisms to ensure that both countries comply with the terms of the agreement. This could include provisions for monitoring compliance, imposing sanctions for non-compliance, and establishing a joint commission to oversee the implementation of the agreement.

Establishing clear and effective dispute resolution mechanisms to address any conflicts that may arise between the two countries regarding species conservation. This is crucial for ensuring the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of the agreement. The agreement should also establish formal processes for regular consultation and negotiation to resolve disputes amicably. This should include mechanisms for stakeholder participation and public input. Utilizing third-party mediation or arbitration to facilitate the resolution of more complex or intractable disputes would also provide a neutral and impartial forum for finding solutions.

Incorporating specific climate change adaptation measures into the agreement, recognizing the dynamic nature of the challenges. This includes provisions for monitoring climate change impacts, assessing species vulnerability, and implementing adaptive management strategies.

5.3. Integrating species displacement into climate policies: A holistic approach #

Current climate policies, both at the national and international levels, often focus primarily on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting human societies to climate change impacts. However, the needs of displaced species are frequently overlooked or relegated to secondary considerations. A more holistic and integrated approach is needed, one that explicitly recognizes and addresses the challenges of climate-induced wildlife displacement.

Climate policies must recognize displaced species as a distinct category of concern, acknowledging their unique vulnerabilities and the specific challenges they face in adapting to climate change. This recognition should be reflected in the goals, targets, strategies, and resource allocation of climate policies. Climate adaptation measures should be designed and implemented to address the specific needs of vulnerable species. This requires a comprehensive understanding of their ecological requirements, their sensitivity to climate change impacts, and their capacity to adapt. The restoration and protection of habitats that are resilient to climate change impacts, such as mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs, and forests, should be prioritized. These habitats provide essential refugia for species and can help buffer the effects of climate change. Implementing assisted migration programs to relocate species to more suitable habitats, where necessary, should be considered.

However, this strategy should be approached with caution, as it can pose risks to recipient ecosystems. Careful planning, risk assessments, and monitoring are essential. It is also necessary to reduce other stressors on species, such as pollution, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and unsustainable resource extraction, to increase their resilience to climate change. Addressing these stressors can enhance the ability of species to cope with the challenges of a changing climate. Investing in long-term monitoring and research programs to track species responses to climate change, assess the effectiveness of adaptation measures, and inform adaptive management strategies requires a sustained commitment to scientific inquiry and data collection.

Parties to the Paris Agreement should integrate biodiversity concerns, with a specific focus on the protection of displaced species, into their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This is crucial for ensuring that climate action is aligned with biodiversity conservation goals. They should set specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) targets for the conservation and protection of vulnerable species in their NDCs. These targets should be aligned with national biodiversity strategies and action plans, including detailed adaptation measures for species in their climate adaptation plans, with clear indicators and timelines. These measures should be integrated into broader adaptation strategies for sectors such as agriculture, water management, and coastal zone management.

It is also important to ensure regular and transparent reporting on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, as well as on the effectiveness of conservation measures, within the Parties’ progress reports to the UNFCCC. Such reporting promotes accountability and facilitates learning from the best practices.

5.4. Corporate accountability for species displacement: Aligning business with biodiversity #

Corporate activities, such as deforestation for agriculture, mining operations, and large-scale infrastructure development, can have devastating consequences for biodiversity, leading to habitat destruction and widespread species displacement. Legal mechanisms are needed to hold corporations accountable for these impacts and to incentivize them to adopt sustainable practices.

The concept of ecocide, defined as the unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment, is increasingly relevant in the context of corporate activities that contribute to species displacement (Higgins et al., 2010). While not yet universally recognized as an international crime, the concept of ecocide can be used to frame the legal and ethical responsibility of corporations for large-scale environmental destruction.

Several legal mechanisms can be employed to enhance corporate accountability:

Strengthening EIA requirements to ensure that corporate projects adequately assess and mitigate their potential impacts on species and habitats. EIAs should be comprehensive, participatory, and scientifically rigorous, and they should consider the cumulative impacts of multiple projects.

Establishing clear legal liability for corporations that cause significant species displacement and requiring them to provide adequate compensation for habitat restoration, species relocation, and other conservation measures. The “polluter pays” principle should be rigorously enforced.

Imposing due diligence obligations on corporations to ensure that their supply chains and operations do not contribute to deforestation, illegal wildlife trade, or other activities that harm species. This includes requiring companies to conduct risk assessments, implement traceability systems, and adhere to environmental standards.

Requiring corporations to disclose their environmental impacts and risks in their financial reports to increase transparency and accountability to investors and the public.

Developing and implementing international treaties and standards that establish legal norms for corporate behavior in relation to biodiversity and species protection. These could include binding agreements or voluntary certification schemes.

Challenges in enforcement include establishing a clear and direct causal link between specific corporate activities and specific instances of species displacement can be complex, particularly when dealing with cumulative impacts or long-term effects, enforcing environmental laws across national borders and holding multinational corporations accountable for their global operations poses significant jurisdictional challenges. International cooperation and coordination are essential, and overcoming the political and economic influence of powerful corporations to ensure that environmental regulations are effectively enforced can be a major hurdle. Strong regulatory agencies, independent judiciaries, and public pressure are crucial.

VI. Conclusion #

This study exposes the growing crisis of climate-induced wildlife displacement and the failure of current anthropocentric legal frameworks to adequately address it. As climate change disrupts ecosystems, many species are forced to migrate across borders, yet existing laws remain rooted in human-centered priorities, failing to recognize the intrinsic value of non-human life. The research underscores the urgent need for legal reforms that embrace ecosystem interconnectedness and promote international cooperation to respond effectively to the transboundary nature of species displacement.

A key recommendation is a paradigm shift toward ecological justice, an approach that redefines legal and ethical obligations to include the rights and well-being of all living beings. Ecological justice moves beyond traditional environmental protection by recognizing the inherent value of biodiversity and affirming the right of species to exist and thrive. This requires laws that not only prevent harm but actively restore ecosystems and promote resilience.

To operationalize this vision, the study advocates for significant reforms, including granting legal personhood to displaced species. This would involve creating mechanisms for species representation, such as guardians and species trusts. Transboundary cooperation must also be strengthened through joint wildlife monitoring, the creation of cross-border corridors, legal harmonization, and effective dispute resolution. International treaties like the Paris Agreement should be revised to explicitly address wildlife displacement and mandate biodiversity protections. Corporate accountability is another critical element.

The study calls for rigorous environmental impact assessments, stronger due diligence obligations, and legal liabilities for harm caused to ecosystems and species. Civil society and NGOs are also recognized as essential actors in advocating for wildlife rights, promoting public awareness, monitoring policy implementation, and holding governments and corporations accountable.

Future research should explore legal responses to species displacement in underexamined ecosystems such as marine and polar regions. Comparative legal analysis could highlight best practices from different jurisdictions, while innovative tools like artificial intelligence for tracking species movement or ecological economic models could enhance conservation strategies. Ethical and philosophical dimensions of ecological justice, including the cultural and moral foundations of wildlife rights, also require further exploration.

The study concludes that addressing climate-induced wildlife displacement is an urgent global priority. Without immediate, coordinated, and justice-based legal action, biodiversity loss will accelerate, threatening ecosystems and human well-being alike. The path forward lies in fostering transboundary cooperation, embracing ecological justice, and enacting transformative legal reforms. By shifting from domination to coexistence and recognizing nature’s intrinsic worth, a legal framework can be built where both humans and wildlife flourish in a climate-challenged world.

References #

  1. Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Technologies of government and the making of subjects. Duke University Press.
  2. Azam, R. M. U. (2025). Acknowledging nature’s intrinsic rights through biophilic constitutionalism. Journal of Law and Politics, 6(1), 123–140. URL: https://doi.org/10.69648/dewo1699.
  3. Azam, R. M. U., Islam, M., & Rahman, A. (2025). The Legal Ecology of Pandemic Prevention: An Examination of Eco-Centric Zoning and Wildlife Preservation Strategies for reducing Zoonotic Spillover risk. Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 05(01), 167–200. URL: https://doi.org/10.33002/jelp050107.
  4. Azam, R. M. U., Zerin, S. A., & Alabi, F. F. K. (2025). ISDS Reform and Environmental Governance: Addressing climate change disputes through UNCITRAL’s framework. In International Investment Law Journal, International Investment Law Journal (Issue 1, pp. 51–73). URL: https://doi.org/10.62768/IILJ/2025/5/1/04.
  5. Azam, R. M. U., Zerin, S. A., & Alabi, F. F. K. (2025). The Rights of Nature Movement: legal, cultural, and policy Challenges in Implementing Eco-Centric Laws. Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 05(01), 87–116. URL: https://doi.org/10.33002/jelp050104
  6. Chowdhury, S. R., Rahman, M. M., & Islam, M. A. (2018). Impact of climate change on prey availability and its consequences on Bengal tiger in the Sundarbans. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 21(1), 1–10.
  7. Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992). Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity. URL: https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/.
  8. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (1973). Text of the Convention. URL: https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php.
  9. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (2000). Linking ecological and social capital for resilience and sustainability. In Institutions and environmental change (pp. 87–101). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  10. Ghosh, S., Mukhopadhyay, A., & Hazra, S. (2016). Impact of climate change on the Sundarban ecosystem. In Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for coastal communities (pp. 105–122).
  11. Hazra, S., Ghosh, T., DasGupta, R., & Sen, G. (2016). Sea level rise and associated storm surge impacts in the Sunderbans: Some projections. Current Science, 91(12), 1653–1663.
  12. Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142(1), 14–32. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006.
  13. Higgins, P., Short, D., South, N., & Westerhuis, D. (2010). Defining and contextualizing ecocide. International Journal of Human Rights, 14(6), 1073–1090. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2010.511614.
  14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Islam, M. S., Rahman, M. M., & Chowdhury, A. H. (2018). Socio-economic impacts of climate change on local communities in the Sundarbans. Journal of Rural Development, 43(1), 25–40.
  16. Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 2025.
  17. Khan, M. A. R., Islam, M. Z., & Rahman, M. M. (2011). Human-tiger conflict in the Sundarbans: A review. Journal of Wildlife and Environmental Management, 5(1), 1–8.
  18. Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  19. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
  20. McAdam, J. (2012). Climate change, forced migration, and international law. Oxford University Press.
  21. Mukherjee, N., Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Hugues, Z. A., & Pretty, J. (2014). Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and future valuation exercises. PLOS ONE, 9(9), e107792. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107792.
  22. New Zealand Parliament. (2017). Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017. URL: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/DLM6830851.html.
  23. Nowell, K. (2015). Bones, horns & teeth: The trade in big cat parts from Asia. TRAFFIC International.
  24. Orford, A. (2003). Reading humanitarian intervention: Human rights and the use of force in international law. Cambridge University Press.
  25. Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421(6918), 37–42. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01286.
  26. Rahman, M. M., Chowdhury, S. R., & Islam, M. A. (2019). Salinity intrusion in the Sundarbans: Impacts on ecosystem health and local livelihoods. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 22(2), 1–12.
  27. Roy, S., Mondal, P., & Debnath, R. (2017). Transboundary governance of the Sundarbans: Legal and Policy Challenges. International Journal of Environmental Policy and Law, 2(1), 10–18.
  28. Saha, S., Rahman, M. M., & Islam, M. A. (2021). Transboundary cooperation for conservation in the Sundarbans: A framework for joint management. Journal of Sustainable Development, 14(3), 1–10.
  29. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press.
  30. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. URL: https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/gbo-5-en.pdf.
  31. Stone, C. D. (1972). Should trees have standing? — Toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450–501.
  32. Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton University Press.
  33. UNESCO. (n.d.). Sundarbans. Retrieved April 10, 2025, from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/798/.
  34. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (1992). UNFCCC Convention Text. URL: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
  35. UNFCCC. (2015). Paris Agreement. URL: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement.
  36. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (2019).
Трансграничные решения для видов, перемещенных из-за изменения климата: юридический императив экологической устойчивости** #

Равнак Мирай Ал Азем

Аннотация: Данное исследование посвящено критически важному правовому пробелу, связанному с вытеснением диких животных вследствие изменения климата, представляющем собой разрастающийся экологический кризис. В центре внимания автора — регион Сундарбан (Бангладеш и Индия) и его культовый вид — бенгальский тигр. На основе анализа международных и национальных правовых норм делается вывод об их недостаточности для эффективной защиты видов, вынужденных мигрировать из-за изменения климата. Предлагается смещение парадигмы регулирования в сторону экологической справедливости через признание правосубъектности перемещенных видов и разработку трансграничных видоспецифичных правовых комплексов.

Автор также исследует встроенность проблемы перемещенных видов животных в климатическую политику, подчеркивая корпоративную ответственность за ущерб, наносимый окружающей среде. Исследование призывает к целостному, видоориентированному подходу для обеспечения экологической устойчивости в условиях меняющегося климата.

Ключевые слова: перемещение из-за изменения климата, права видов, экологическая справедливость, трансграничное сохранение, правосубъектность.

DOI: 10.55167/378ac4814d46

  1. Rawnak Miraj Ul Azam. American International University-Bangladesh: Dhaka, Dhaka City, BD. Email: [email protected]. ORCID: 0009-0005-7818-895X. ↩︎