Every year, families in Bhola, Khulna, and Shatkhira are displaced from their homes due to floods and erosion. Most of them relocate to urban slums, facing precarious living conditions. This internal migration is adding pressure to cities. By 2050, the number of individuals compelled to move because of climate change could soar to 20 million. The critical issue arises: where do vulnerable people go and what laws protect them when their lands become uninhabitable, sometimes vanishing under water? With rising sea levels displacing millions, Bangladesh must advocate for a climate passport to ensure dignity and justice for its citizens.
The concept of a climate passport is a proposed legal tool designed to safeguard those displaced by climate change. It would operate similarly to the historical Nansen passport issued to stateless individuals post-World War I, conferring legal status and the right to cross borders. Scholars propose integrating such a system into existing frameworks such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Platform on Disaster Displacement, and the Global Compact for Migration.
The essence of this idea lies in addressing a significant legal gap—the 1951 Refugee Convention does not cover climate displacement. While International Human Rights Law provides some protections, it lacks provisions for migrating across borders when homes are lost to the sea. Without a legal recourse, millions risk being stuck in limbo—neither secure at home nor recognized abroad.
The Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees the right to life (Article 32), protection of law (Article 31), and the right to a healthy environment (Article 18A). Additionally, the Supreme Court, in cases like Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (2003) and Rabia Bhuiyan, MP v. Ministry of LGRD & others, has interpreted that Articles 32 and 31 encompass the right to a healthy environment. However, when entire coastal regions like Shatkhira or Khulna become uninhabitable, cities like Dhaka cannot endlessly absorb these populations. Under such dire circumstances, constitutional protections cannot remain confined within shrinking borders. Safeguarding life and dignity necessitates pursuing mobility rights beyond the state’s boundaries. Without legal recognition abroad, displaced citizens risk becoming invisible—neither refugees nor secure residents at home.
In this context, climate displacement is not solely a humanitarian crisis but a constitutional and legal imperative. Bangladesh, as both a frontline victim and a moral advocate in climate diplomacy, is obligated to present this case globally.
Experts predict that with rising sea levels, Pacific small island states such as Kiribati and Tuvalu will be the first to submerge. Faced with similar fears, Nauru introduced a controversial “climate citizenship” or “golden passport” scheme in February 2025 to raise funds for adaptation and potential relocation. Although critics view it as nationality sale, its message is clear: in times of territorial risk, mobility and identity become matters of survival, not choice. Likewise, climate activists and legal scholars have resurrected the concept of a climate passport as a structured, rights-based solution. Bangladesh’s predicament parallels theirs, albeit involving millions of people threatened by climate displacement, as opposed to thousands.
The significance of a climate passport lies in three aspects: (1) Justice: Bangladesh’s minimal contribution to global emissions contrasts with the severe consequences it faces. The principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) calls for high-emission nations to bear a fair share of responsibility, including supporting climate mobility; (2) Order: A climate passport would ensure orderly, legal, and dignified movement, preventing chaotic displacement and irregular migration; (3) Dignity: Migration should not deprive individuals of their rights. A climate passport would guarantee that losing land does not equate to losing identity, culture, or protection.
Bangladesh has been at the forefront of global climate advocacy, leading the Climate Vulnerable Forum and advocating for Loss and Damage funding. Similar efforts can be made concerning climate mobility by advocating internationally for the recognition of a climate passport within the UNFCCC and the Global Compact on Migration. Forming alliances with small island states and other vulnerable nations to demand minimum recognition standards is crucial, alongside domestic preparations involving documenting displaced populations, investing in skills training, and negotiating bilateral labor agreements with potential host countries.
Presenting the climate passport not as an act of charity but as a legal necessity rooted in human rights and international law will bolster Bangladesh’s case.
Historical dialogues indicate that wealthy nations may be hesitant to agree, but the consequences of inaction are far graver: millions stranded in disaster areas or uncontrolled influxes into overwhelmed cities. Nonetheless, initiatives like Nauru’s golden passports or scholarly proposals for a Nansen-style travel document indicate that legal frameworks are adapting to rising sea levels.
Bangladesh cannot halt the encroaching Bay of Bengal, but it can influence global laws so that