| This thesis examines the plight of environmentally displaced persons (EDPs) and asks whether Canadian humanitarian practices in Canadian immigration and refugee law can provide adequate legal protection to those who are displaced by natural disasters. Through a case study, I argue that humanitarian assistance does not provide adequate protection for EDPs. I argue that Hathaway and Penz's solution to responding to EDPs as a humanitarian issue does not provide them sufficient protection. I argue that humanitarianism is no longer based on the seven classic guiding principles of humanitarianism (humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality). Instead, states have various national interests (political or economic) that interfere with humanitarian assistance. I argue that, in practice various interests of the state displace the priorities of humanitarian assistance because state interest trumps the goals of providing humanitarian assistance. This paper contributes to the ongoing debates of understanding the relationship between environmental change, forced migration and the law and how countries understand and respond to these issues. This thesis also hopes to problematize how humanitarian assistance is understood. |
