ABSTRACT
Following the important decision of the UN Human Rights Committee on the case Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand, the recent rulings of some national Courts of EU Member States – i.e., Italy, France and Germany – seems to significantly contribute to laying the foundations for creating a new line of jurisprudence that has led to the recognition of forms of national protection for causes of migration of an environmental nature. The evolutionary and dynamic interpretation of the rules on human rights in the light of the effects of environmental and climate degradation and of atmospheric pollution recently operated by national Courts strongly and clearly contrasts with the persistent non-recognition, at the regulatory level, both in international and in EU (hard) law, of the category of “environmental/climate migrants”. The paper is aimed at analysing the most relevant aspects of three recent pronouncements, adopted – respectively – by the Italian Court of Cassation, the Bordeaux Court of Appeal and the High Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg, in order to underline the driving role that internal Courts seem to play in promoting such a dynamic and evolutionary interpretation of existing law to (better) respond to the current causes of forced migration.
