Law, War, and Warming: The New Frontiers of Climate Security

As 2025 draws to a close, the climate-security agenda feels less like a niche debate, growing sharper, more complex, and perhaps for the first time, more actionable.

The intersection of climate change, migration, health, and conflict has become visible in courts, war zones, clinics, and mining fields. This year marked a shift from awareness to accountability. The question for 2026 is whether momentum across these 4 areas can translate into protection for those most affected as they will have significant implications for policy formulation, programming, and research.

1. Law and Legitimacy: The ICJ’s Climate Turning Point

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice issued a landmark advisory opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. For the first time, the ICJ recognized that governments have a legal duty to prevent climate harm and protect human rights from its effects. Although non-binding, the opinion signaled that international law is edging toward recognizing climate displacement as a legitimate basis for protection.

The ruling reaffirmed that returning individuals to places where climate degradation threatens their lives could violate the principle of non-refoulement under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In practical terms, it invites states to integrate climate-induced displacement into national asylum and refugee laws, a step that could transform global migration governance.

The opinion’s significance lies less in its immediate legal consequences than in its moral force. It crystallizes a growing consensus: those displaced by floods, droughts, or rising seas are not anomalies of development but casualties of a shared failure to act. Yet challenges remain. Without clear definitions (for example, who exactly counts as a “climate migrant” knowing that mobility is multicausal), domestication will vary widely across states. The coming year will test whether this advisory opinion sparks meaningful legislative reform or remains another aspirational milestone.

2. Impact of Violent Conflict and Climate Change Displacement

Conflict and climate have always been uneasy companions, but 2025 exposed how deeply entwined they’ve become.

Across Sudan, Ukraine, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, climate change has acted as a “threat multiplier,” deepening instability in already fragile contexts. The toxic legacy of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and explosive remnants of war (ERW) compounds these crises. Floods and landslides triggered by extreme weather have unearthed forgotten munitions, turning farmland into death traps and contaminating water sources.

ERW are not just relics of the past; they are environmental hazards that outlive the wars that created them. In Ukraine, contamination of cropland has slashed wheat production falling by 41% between 2021 and the end of 2024. In South Sudan, farmers and herders face the double bind of drought and land mines. Large areas remain contaminated also putting children and livestock herders all at risk because of these hidden killers. Communities caught between conflict and climate shock find recovery almost impossible.

The overlap of war debris and climate extremes shows that climate security cannot be pursued in isolation from peacebuilding. Every unexploded shell limits arable land and erodes the capacity for adaptation. For climate-security practitioners, integrating ERW considerations into resilience frameworks is no longer optional. The legacies of past wars are now active participants in the climate crisis.

3. Change, Health and Displacement

The World Health Organization’s decision this year to classify climate change as an imminent health threat marks another major shift. Rising temperatures are amplifying diseases, malnutrition, and mental health challenges, particularly among displaced and vulnerable populations.

For example, research in Spain, Madagascar and Netherlands shows links between climate change and depression and anxiety. Thankfully, at COP28, global leaders united in endorsing the health and climate change declaration recognizing that healthy populations are key for resilience and adaptation. Growing evidence shows the disproportionate impacts of climate change on women who often face the heaviest burden. In Kenya for example, women who are often responsible for food and water security are also increasingly trapped in cycles of climate-induced anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts. Climate change has become a silent mental health crisis. The growing recognition of this link calls for new evidence, policy focus, and cross-sector collaboration that treat health as integral to climate resilience, not an afterthought.

The implications for healthcare systems, both in urban and rural settings, are profound and warrant consideration in policy discussions. Taken together, all these issues emphasize the need for climate security specialists to prioritize health security by producing relevant evidence to shape policies and programs for the most affected populations. Key thematic considerations should focus but not be limited to the intersections between climate change, health and vulnerability spanning mental health, gender and SRHR, extreme weather, food and water insecurity, displacement, and the broader policy and systems interface.

4. Climate Change and Extractivism in Fragile and Conflict Affected Settings

Nowhere are the tensions between development and sustainability more visible than in the extractive frontiers of the Global South. Between 130 and 270 million people depend on artisanal and small-scale mining for their livelihoods. These activities sustain economies but devastate ecosystems leading to deforestation, soil erosion, and mercury contamination.

This paradox cuts to the heart of climate justice. The same minerals that power the green transition (cobalt, lithium, rare earths) are extracted from fragile environments by communities least equipped to bear the consequences. In many cases, mining pits coexist with farms and forests, triggering conflicts over land and water.

The so-called “paradox of plenty” persists: resource-rich nations often remain poor and unstable. Without stronger governance, artisanal mining will continue to trade short-term survival for long-term insecurity. For 2026, the challenge is to reconcile economic inclusion with environmental stewardship, to ensure that a just transition is not merely a slogan but a lived reality for mining communities.

Policymakers must ask, how can climate, peace, and security agendas converge in resource-rich but environmentally fragile regions? A sustainable extractive model must balance the imperatives of livelihoods, biodiversity, and national growth. Anything less risks entrenching the very inequalities climate action seeks to resolve.

Into 2026

Taken together, these four fronts i.e. law, conflict, health, and extractivism, show how far the climate-security conversation has evolved. The field is no longer about proving that climate affects security but rather about designing systems that respond coherently to that reality. Yet coherence remains the missing link.

Two priorities stand out for the year ahead:

First, data and evidence.

We cannot anticipate or prevent crises without granular, localized data on climate migration, displacement, and vulnerability. Evidence is the backbone of prevention, essential for targeting resources and tracking the shifting geographies of risk. Documenting the lived experiences of climate-displaced people should remain a central research goal, not an afterthought.

Second, local knowledge.

Adaptation that ignores indigenous and traditional systems will fail. Communities often possess deep reservoirs of ecological intelligence such as knowledge about water cycles, soil patterns, or conflict mediation, that can complement scientific models. Incorporating these perspectives is a condition for success.

As 2026 approaches, the climate-security agenda faces a paradox of its own: it has never been more visible, yet never more complex. The task now is synthesis, that is, to connect legal innovation, humanitarian insight, and scientific evidence into a single architecture of resilience. That requires not only international coordination but humility, recognizing that adaptation will be built from the ground up, one vulnerable community at a time.

Authors: Joyce Takaindisa & Ibukun Taiwo, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT. Photo Credit: CIAT/NeilPalmer

This work is carried out with support from the CGIAR Climate Action Science Program (CASP) and the CGIAR Food Frontiers and Security (FFS) Science Program. We would like to thank all funders who supported this research through their contributions to the CGIAR Trust Fund: https://www.cgiar.org/funders/