When the Climate Crisis Turns into a Gender Crisis: Rethinking International Law to Address Gender-Based Violence Caused by Climate Change

INTRODUCTION: 

The link between climate change and gender-based violence (GBV) is a growing global concern. A 2025 UN Spotlight Initiative report states that a 1 °C increase in temperature correlates to a 4.7 percent increase in intimate partner violence that raises a warning flag that climate change can act as a "threat multiplier" for abuse against women and girls. Environmental catastrophes, homelessness, loss of income, and breakdown of infrastructure increase women's vulnerability to physical, sexual, and psychological abuse, trafficking, and forced marriage. 

At this moment in time, international law rooted in human rights instruments such as CEDAW, the UDHR, and the ICCPR, along with environmental agreements such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, provides a framework for protecting rights and addressing climate change, however, these separate regimes often do not recognize their intersection, and their focus is on providing far-greater protection to survivors of climate-related GBV than they are currently able to. This fragmentation is especially troubling in vulnerable countries like Afghanistan because of their continuous climate shocks on top of structural gender inequality.

This paper reviews ways in which climate change contributes to gender violence, highlights the shortcomings of current international legal norms, and suggests potential legal reforms — including changes to treaties and mandatory climate-gender risk assessments — to ensure law can respond to the developing crisis.

HOW CLIMATE CHANGE FUELS GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE: 

Climate change functions as a "threat multiplier". When associated with poverty and other vulnerabilities, it often worsens these vulnerabilities and increases the chances of various sorts of GBV (gender-based violence). In this section, we will examine four main pathways connecting climate disasters and the risks of escalating violence against women and girls, with specific examples from fragile states like Afghanistan.

1. Displacement and Insecure Environments – 

Climactic disasters can include floods, droughts and earthquakes and often lead to mass displacement, transportation families into overcrowded shelters or temporary camps. Survivors are more likely to experience sexual assault, trafficking, and intimate partner violence in insecure environments. UNHCR notes that displaced women and girls—especially if forced to flee—face a “devastating spike” in GBV due to interruptions in security and access systems. 

2. Economic Stress and Domestic Violence - 

Economic hardship occurs when climate shocks affect livelihoods, such as agriculture and herding. Studies found that a 1 °C increase in temperature is associated with a 4.7% increase in intimate partner violence, and extreme heat waves can result in an increase of up to 28% in gender-based violence. In Afghanistan, drought and loss of farming income are contributing to increased household tensions, leading to an increase in abusive actions in domestic situations. 

3.  Collapse of Institutions – 

Climate crisis events usually cripple the systems charged with protecting women- police, courts, shelters, and social protection services. When people displace, they frequently live in unsafe and overcrowded space with limited options for accessing legal protection or trauma recovery. UNHCR has stated that "people forced to flee often arrive in remote, overcrowded camps with very limited access to basic services," meaning that women are further exposed to gender-based violence during these breakdowns. Additionally, UNHCR and academic studies indicate that diminished food security and insufficient sustainable livelihoods—a feature of inadequate institutional support—creates harmful coping strategies, including early marriage, transactional sex or silence about abuse. 

Ultimately, these institutional failures create isolation, vulnerability, and lack of recourse for survivors, underscoring the continuing importance of resilient legal and social systems in climate crises. 

4.  Policy Blind Spots and Gender Disparity – 

Key international instruments such as the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement currently do not have GBV protections, and present blind spots in climate governance. In Afghanistan, where women's rights are already limited through a combination of legal and cultural obstacles, there is a risk that failure to plan in a gender-responsive manner may leave women vulnerable to violence when disasters arise. 

These pathways show that climate change not only poses further risks for GBV; it also amplifies already existing vulnerabilities. In fragile contexts such as Afghanistan, where women are already socially and legally disadvantaged, the overlaps of disaster and gender inequality compound the threats facing women. To adequately protect these communities and strengthen their capacities, will require a detailed legal response. 

3. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS: 

Climate-related gender-based violence (GBV) occupies a complicated legal space—there are multiple treaties that provide at least partial protection, but there is no one legal instrument with full overlap between climate and violence. Below is a targeted assessment of key legal regimes and their important gaps that put survivors at risk. 

1.  Human Rights Instruments - 

CEDAW (1979) continues to be the landmark treaty imposing obligations on states to eliminate discrimination and violence toward women. However, the current language does not sufficiently include gender-based violence due to environmental disasters. The CEDAW Committee’s current General Recommendation No. 37 states that member states must apply gender-responsive disaster risk reduction, but not all states have opt-in and even in those states whose governments accept and apply the recommendation, they do not uniformly and consistently apply it - this leads to inconsistent protections that are mostly non-justiciable. 

2.  Environmental Law - 

The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement are increasingly recognizing gender factors—including through the Gender Action Plan and the Lima work programme. But, the legal frameworks do not impose any binding obligations on states to prevent or remedy violence against women exacerbated by climate change. As Climate policies become increasingly divorced from gender-responsive safeguards, the situation for women in vulnerable conditions, countries like Afghanistan, are left especially vulnerable. 

3.  Conflict and Security Law - 

UN Security Council resolutions, such as 1820 (2008) and 1888 (2009), underscore the need for addressing sexual violence in conflict and post-context contexts. However, the resolutions do not address situations where climate displacement contributes to gender-based violence in non-traditional conflict zones, which exposes a significant gap in the law. 

4.  State responsibility and Criminal Liability - 

International humanitarian law prohibits gendered violence, but is limited to armed conflict. The obligation of the State under international human rights treaties is "due diligence" to mitigate foreseeable gender-based violence, including in the context of disasters. Presently, there are no legal enforcement mechanisms which link gender-based violence and climate hazards. 

In the absence of integrated legal protections, states could comply with climate and gender policies separately, but still ignore the lived realities of where these disasters occur in relation to gender-based violence. Countries like Afghanistan, where extreme weather events and gender inequality co-exist, require a unified legal approach. Advancing climate-related protection measures, mandatory reporting by the state on gender-based violence post-disaster, and legal recognition of violence that results from disaster situations due to climate-related change are foundational gaps that need to be addressed. 

LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY: 

International law requires states to achieve a standard of due diligence where states must prevent and respond to human rights violations which result from human actions, even if those actions were committed by private individuals. The obligation to respond to and prevent these human rights violations comes from the framework that is established in human rights treaties and included in a multitude of regional courts and United Nations (UN) guidance.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights established this duty of care when faced with state inaction in Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras (1988). In this case, the Court noted that the state should take “reasonable steps to prevent” the abuse committed through domestic violence, and needed to take steps to investigate and punish offenders failing to do so, would render the state complicit to the states ability to adopt better measures. The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (1993), and CEDAW General Recommendation 19 also highlight this due diligence obligation of states with regard to gender-based violence.  

Applying this to climate scenarios, states must continue to exercise due diligence when disasters occur, and this includes maintaining law enforcement, legal assistance, and safe havens for women to flee GBV. When states do not meet these standards, or otherwise cannot or do not take the required action, they violate their obligations to respect binding human rights standards. 

International environmental and human rights law also incorporate the concept of due diligence when requiring climate action. The European Court of Human Rights, along with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, have considered effective climate mitigation as part of a state’s obligations to protect rights to life, health, etc. This indicates if states do not address climate risks - including the gendered risks that are included in climate stressors - they could be liable for not fulfilling their obligations. 

While these principles are fully developed in theory, there is a lack of a concrete mechanism to hold states accountable within statutory frameworks where climate-related gender-based violence occurs. The legal framework remains disjointed; what environmental responsibilities exist do not yet lead to enforceable protections of girls and women from gender violence in disasters. For states the size of Afghanistan, the gap between the codified duties of the SPDs and the opinions of the SPDs means that even when they fail to protect women after their floods and droughts, there may be no way to require them to protect women under existing international law. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

As an international lawyer, I believe that the growing intersection of climate change and gender-based violence creates a legal necessity that is both ethically pressing and demands legal innovation. The international legal framework, while substantive, lacks comprehensive intentions and is reactive in nature; therefore, states should adopt a proactive, integrated approach to acknowledge the gendered effects of the climate crisis and to guarantee that protections are embedded in both climate governance and human rights. 

First, the existing human rights treaties--especially that of CEDAW--should be interpreted and utilized with more clarity in respect of climate-induced gender harms. States must be expressly required to account for violence against women occurring in conjunction with disasters, displacement or environmental stress in their General Recommendations and national reporting obligations. This will create legal incentives for national governments to build gender-responsive disaster risk management systems. 

Second, climate law must move past generalized gender references. Soft law instruments like the Paris Agreement’s Gender Action Plan must transition to a more meaningful legal commitment. The framework for climate adaptation funding, resilience-building, and disaster response mechanisms must incorporate mandatory gender-based violence risk assessments, access to survivor’s services and long-term gender justice. 

Third, international legal bodies should adopt a soft law framework such as a UN Human Rights Council resolution or an ILC draft principle to connect environmental damage with gender-based violence. This would formalize legal norms without requiring immediate reform of treaties, and would provide guidance to states, courts, and NGOs as they make national protections. 

Finally, countries should strengthen their early warning systems and climate-displacement policies with attention to gender. It is insufficient to remove individuals from a disaster zone; it must ensure a woman and girl-centered legal framework that ensures women and girls are safe, empowered and supported during and post-crisis.

Only when we include gender justice as part of climate justice can international law fulfil its protective role. Without this, we risk repeating the same mistake that perpetuates violence in silence.

CONCLUSION: 

The climate crisis is not merely an environmental emergency, it is a serious human rights crisis, and it particularly threatens women and girls. As climate warming and disasters intensify, so do the structural causes of gender-based violence, leaving survivors caught in two invisible battlegrounds: natural disaster and systemic inaction.

This paper demonstrates that despite some limited provisions existing in international law to address climate change or gender-based violence, notably there is no connection in an actionable way. Both the descriptions of climate-change harm in human rights treaties deal largely in vague terms, while gender is acknowledged in climate agreements without creating any legal mandate. As such, states like Afghanistan, where environmental stress converged with significant gender inequality, lack any cohesive framework to safeguard vulnerable people.

My standpoint as an international lawyer is for this gap to be immediately bridged. Gender justice can no longer be a secondary consideration of climate policymaking. Also, climate justice cannot be realized without independent protection of those most vulnerable to violence. The next phase of legal change must be intersectional, enforceable, and birth human dignity in the vital pursue of sustainable human and environmental survival. Only then can international law react not merely to the symptoms, but to the structure of climate-induced gender-based harm.