The world’s population has reached almost 7,95 billion, more than 280 million live outside their countries of birth (3,6 %), and another 750 million, 1 %) are constantly migrating from one country to another. The objective to apply the classical concept of citizenship as a “real and effective legal relationship” between the state and the person, provided for in Art. 2 of the European Convention on Nationality of 1997, raises sufficient doubts among the scholars and politicians. Such a change in the narrative unequivocally testifies the value and importance of this political and legal issue in the “palette” of modern geopolitical and civilizational challenges, but time requires rapid and radical changes.

The article’s purpose is to justify the need to revise the international legal regulation of migration and individual status, given the paradigm shift in the XXI century (migration crisis in the EU in 2015, the spread of COVID-19 during 2020–2022, Russian aggression in Ukraine since 24.02.2022).

There are still assumptions among the world scientific community that the 1951 UN Refugee Convention is a product of the Cold War environment and is therefore considered a political and legal artifact. It is one of the most important international legal instruments which regulates issues regarding the legal status of a person (who is forced to flee from the country of citizenship) at the international level. However, the Convention has become a kind of anachronism (outdated because it does not meet the challenges of globalization and mass migration because of climate change and other environmental disasters). The main argument in support is the lack of the concept of “climate migrant”, which is supposed to be added to the categorical definition of “refugee” provided by the Convention. However, the very concept of “climate migration” has undergone significant changes over the past twenty years. The narrative has expanded: we received newly applied issues related to “internal climate resettlement (within the state)”, “external climate resettlement (abroad)”, “climate mobility”, etc. We need to make a clear distinction and differentiation and install new legislation at the international, regional, and national levels.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. T orpey J C, The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State (Cambridge University Press 2000) (in English).

2. Psomiades Harry J, Fridtjof Nansen and the Greek Refugee Crisis 1922–1924 (Pella Pub Co 2011) (in English).

Edited books

3. P olitychna enzyklopedija (Lewenets Ju (ed), Shapoval Ju ed, Parlaments’ke wydawnyctwo 2011) (in Ukrainian). Journal articles 4. Millbank A, ‘The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention’ (2000-01) 5 Research Paper 8–9 (in English).

5. Baker-Jones M, Baker-Jones M, ‘Teitiota v The Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – A Person Displaced’ [2015] 15 (2) QUT Law Review 102–21 (in English). 6. Boas I, Farbotko C, Adams H, Sterly H, Bush S, van der Geest K et al, ‘Climate migration myths’ (2019) 9 Nature Climate Change 901–3 (in English).

7. Boyd D R, ‘The Constitutional Right to a Healthy Environment’ [2012] 54 (4) Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 4–5 (in English).

8. Daly E, ‘Constitutional Protection for Environmental Rights: The Benefits of Environmental Process’ [2012] 17 (2) International Journal of Peace Studies 72 (in English).

9. McNamara K E, ‘Conceptualizing discourses on environmental refugees at the United Nations’ (2007) 29 Population and Environment 12–24 (in English).

Conference papers

10. Sofinska Iryna, ‘Partysypatyvna demokratiia u konteksti zakonodavchoho zakriplennia prava liudyny na bezpechne dlia zhyttia i zdorov’ia dovkillia’ v Prava liudyny i dovkillia u novii Ukraini: na chest profesora S. M. Kravchenko: zbirnyk statei ta tez mizhnarodnoho mizhdystsyplinarnoho sympoziumu, 20–21 veresnia 2014 r. (Lviv 2015) 176–87 (in Ukrainian).