This article argues that, as individuals are already applying for refugee status in the context of disasters and climate change, a robust understanding of why disasters happen and how different groups are affected, combined with a principled methodology for determining such claims, are critical aspects of the anxious scrutiny that each claim should receive. The limitations of the “hazards” paradigm, which is shown to be dominant in international refugee law, are highlighted. Adopting the “social” paradigm developed within the field of disaster risk reduction, the argument is advanced that an understanding of disasters as social phenomena within which existing patterns of discrimination contribute to differential impacts, provides a sharper lens with which to consider eligibility for refugee status.The article argues that recent case-law from the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal reflects an awareness of the social paradigm, and the methodology for determining such claims is described and largely endorsed. It concludes by identifying sources of country of origin information that can help to address some of the evidentiary challenges claimants may face, and argues that the risk assessment under refugee law is more generous than the “immediacy” requirement identified by the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal in relation to complementary protection claims. (Less)

中文翻译：

---

在逆境中寻找代理：在灾难和气候变化的背景下应用难民公约

本文认为，由于个人已经在灾害和气候变化的背景下申请难民身份，深入了解灾害发生的原因以及不同群体如何受到影响，并结合确定此类申请的原则性方法，是每项索赔应受到的焦虑审查。强调了在国际难民法中占主导地位的“危险”范式的局限性。采用在减少灾害风险领域内发展起来的“社会”范式，提出了这样一种论点，即将灾害理解为社会现象，其中现有的歧视模式导致不同的影响，提供了一个更清晰的视角来考虑难民身份的资格. 文章认为，新西兰移民和保护法庭最近的判例法反映了对社会范式的认识，并且描述了确定此类索赔的方法并在很大程度上得到了认可。它最后确定了原籍国信息的来源，这些来源可以帮助解决索赔人可能面临的一些证据挑战，并认为难民法下的风险评估比新西兰移民和保护局确定的“即时”要求更为慷慨。仲裁庭关于补充保护要求。（较少的）它最后确定了原籍国信息的来源，这些来源可以帮助解决索赔人可能面临的一些证据挑战，并认为难民法下的风险评估比新西兰移民和保护局确定的“即时”要求更为慷慨。仲裁庭关于补充保护要求。（较少的）它最后确定了原籍国信息的来源，这些来源可以帮助解决索赔人可能面临的一些证据挑战，并认为难民法下的风险评估比新西兰移民和保护局确定的“即时”要求更为慷慨。仲裁庭关于补充保护要求。（较少的）