{"id":6916,"date":"2020-02-24T08:30:00","date_gmt":"2020-02-23T22:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/?p=6916"},"modified":"2023-05-04T15:10:05","modified_gmt":"2023-05-04T05:10:05","slug":"the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/","title":{"rendered":"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The\nUnited Nations human rights committee, who heard the case between Teitiota v New\nZealand <\/a> in January, obfuscated Teitiota\u2019s argument on\nhuman rights when they declared his case a landmark ruling towards a pathway\nfor climate refugees in the future. This is not what Teititoa argued for when\nhe took his case to the UNHRC and lost. He claimed that due to sea level rising\nand continuous sea coastal flooding, the lack of access to safe, potable water\nand sanitation was a threat to his right to life. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Somewhere between New Zealand, Geneva and the rest of the world, the message from the UN experts about non-refoulment of climate refugees became all about how this case was going to change the approach between governments and people seeking refugee status from climate crisis. Teitiota\u2019s case was based on the substantive elements in Article 6 (1),<\/a> \u2018Right to Life\u2019 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and not on any other substantive element pertaining to international refugee law. This would not have been admissible because the convention relating to the Status of Refugees<\/a> does not provide protection to people seeking refuge from climate change and climate crisis disasters. Migration laws are created by national legislatures and governments have no obligation under international law to broaden their scope to cover people leaving their countries due to climate crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According\nto media reports citing UN experts, the \u201clandmark ruling\u201d\nrepresents a \u201clegal tipping point\u201d<\/a>. The Committee ruled that it would be\nunlawful for governments to return those seeking asylum to their countries if\ntheir lives are threatened by the impacts of climate change. However, the\ncommittee did not ask New Zealand to refrain from sending Teitiota and his\nfamily back to Kiribati whilst the decision was pending at the UNHRC. This\nenabled an administrative refoulment in spite of Teitiota\u2019s case not having been\nsettled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ncommittee found that Teitiota\u2019s reasons for his objections to his deportation\nto Kiribati were unfounded and did not meet the threshold of the threat to his\nlife as he claimed. The UN human rights committee said that \u201c sea level rise is\nlikely to render the republic of Kiribati uninhabitable\u2026the timeframe of 10-15\nyears as suggested by Teitiota, could allow for intervening acts by the Republic\nof Kiribati, with the assistance of the international community, to take\naffirmative measures to protect and where necessary, relocate its population.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 The  UN report by the Special Rapporteur for the\nhuman right to safe drinking water and sanitation,<\/a> mission to\nKiribati, Catarina de Albuquerque, said that although the government of\nKiribati had a national plan for safe water practices, these plans were far\nfrom being fully implemented and nor did the plans identify links between water\nsanitation and high infant and child mortality rates. Kiribati has no\nclean surface water<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nher dissenting opinion, UNHRC member, Vasilka Sancin, stated that it should\nhave been the obligation of the state party (i.e. New Zealand) to demonstrate\nthat Teitiota and his family would not be denied the right to enjoy safe\ndrinking and potable water. She could not agree with the committee\u2019s finding,\nreferring also to the UN special rapporteur\u2019s report and found in favour for\nTeitiota\u2019s claim under Article 6 (1)<\/a>. She objected to\nthe deportation of him and his family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ioane\nTeitiota\u2019s case may be seen as a landmark case in the sense that it could very\nwell be the first case tried as a climate refugee claim. However, as long as\nthere is no refugee status permitted under international law for those seeking\nasylum due to climate and environmental disasters, then such cases are dead in\nthe water. What does exist and has an established robust legal framework, is\ninternational human rights law. However, right now we are seeing the practice\nof human rights being diluted and weakened by world leaders, governments, and\neven by the very institutions that we look to as our last hope. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

There is an unsettling trend in the failure to uphold human rights norms and moral principles. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

If\nwe do not give human rights priority consideration when it comes to climate\nchange, then we have not understood the emergency faced by those who are most\nvulnerable. The UNHRC decision in the Teitiota case could be seen as an\nindication that the committee has not understood the human rights crisis faced\nby some Pacific islanders as a direct result of climate change. The council does\nnot seem to be on a climate emergency footing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assumptions of potential legal recourse but without any existing legal framework that can apply today means that the voices of Pacific people and communities whose human rights are impacted by climate change now, will be drowned out by the background noise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AUTHOR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grace Maharaj was born in Fiji and grew up in New Zealand and is a resident of Sweden. She has worked with asylum and migration for the social services department under the municipality of Stockholm. She is currently studying Climate Change Leadership, Peace and Conflict Studies at the Uppsala University, Sweden.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The United Nations human rights committee, who heard the case between Teitiota v New Zealand  in January, obfuscated Teitiota\u2019s argument on human rights when they declared his case a landmark ruling towards a pathway for climate refugees in the future. This is not what Teititoa argued for when he took his case to the UNHRCContinue reading “The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":6917,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1758,1021,248,1056,1057],"tags":[842,1036,969,1050],"class_list":["post-6916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-climate-environment","category-pacific-outlook","category-png-and-the-pacific","category-politics","category-security","tag-climate-change","tag-kiribati","tag-pacific-islands","tag-pacific-outlook"],"acf":[],"modified_by":"Jill Moriarty","yoast_head":"\nThe obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific | Griffith Asia Insights<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The United Nations human rights committee, who heard the case between Teitiota v New Zealand  in January, obfuscated Teitiota\u2019s argument on human\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific | Griffith Asia Insights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The United Nations human rights committee, who heard the case between Teitiota v New Zealand  in January, obfuscated Teitiota\u2019s argument on human\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Griffith Asia Insights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/griffithasiainstitute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-02-23T22:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-05-04T05:10:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/02\/obscure-human-rights-climate-change-900x500-1.jpg?fit=900%2C500&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"900\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"500\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Griffith Asia Institute\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@GAIGriffith\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@GAIGriffith\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Griffith Asia Institute\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Griffith Asia Institute\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/person\/8121b8aa336749474cbaca380c03029a\"},\"headline\":\"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-02-23T22:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-05-04T05:10:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/\"},\"wordCount\":862,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Climate change\",\"Kiribati\",\"Pacific Islands\",\"Pacific outlook\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Pillar 4: Climate and environment\",\"Region | Papua New Guinea and the Pacific\",\"Region-PNG and the Pacific\",\"Topic-Politics\",\"Topic-Security\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/\",\"name\":\"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific | Griffith Asia Insights\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-02-23T22:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-05-04T05:10:05+00:00\",\"description\":\"The United Nations human rights committee, who heard the case between Teitiota v New Zealand  in January, obfuscated Teitiota\u2019s argument on human\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/\",\"name\":\"Griffith Asia Insights\",\"description\":\"Asia Insights is published by the Griffith Asia Institute. It offers latest commentary on Asia-Pacific affairs and aims to inform and foster academic scholarship, public awareness and considered and responsive policy making.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Griffith Asia Institute\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2023\/10\/GU_Griffith-Asia-Institute_rgb_red_horizontal.png?fit=2930%2C308&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2023\/10\/GU_Griffith-Asia-Institute_rgb_red_horizontal.png?fit=2930%2C308&ssl=1\",\"width\":2930,\"height\":308,\"caption\":\"Griffith Asia Institute\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/griffithasiainstitute\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/GAIGriffith\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/person\/8121b8aa336749474cbaca380c03029a\",\"name\":\"Griffith Asia Institute\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f133de65681da3b20ddbc1917f066f458d355d7dfa1f214b10ff4bd135d5ab6c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f133de65681da3b20ddbc1917f066f458d355d7dfa1f214b10ff4bd135d5ab6c?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Griffith Asia Institute\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/author\/gaigriffith-edu-au\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific | Griffith Asia Insights","description":"The United Nations human rights committee, who heard the case between Teitiota v New Zealand  in January, obfuscated Teitiota\u2019s argument on human","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific | Griffith Asia Insights","og_description":"The United Nations human rights committee, who heard the case between Teitiota v New Zealand  in January, obfuscated Teitiota\u2019s argument on human","og_url":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/","og_site_name":"Griffith Asia Insights","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/griffithasiainstitute\/","article_published_time":"2020-02-23T22:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-05-04T05:10:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":900,"height":500,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/02\/obscure-human-rights-climate-change-900x500-1.jpg?fit=900%2C500&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Griffith Asia Institute","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@GAIGriffith","twitter_site":"@GAIGriffith","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Griffith Asia Institute","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/"},"author":{"name":"Griffith Asia Institute","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/person\/8121b8aa336749474cbaca380c03029a"},"headline":"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific","datePublished":"2020-02-23T22:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2023-05-04T05:10:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/"},"wordCount":862,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#organization"},"keywords":["Climate change","Kiribati","Pacific Islands","Pacific outlook"],"articleSection":["Pillar 4: Climate and environment","Region | Papua New Guinea and the Pacific","Region-PNG and the Pacific","Topic-Politics","Topic-Security"],"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/","url":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/","name":"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific | Griffith Asia Insights","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-02-23T22:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2023-05-04T05:10:05+00:00","description":"The United Nations human rights committee, who heard the case between Teitiota v New Zealand  in January, obfuscated Teitiota\u2019s argument on human","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/the-obfuscation-of-human-rights-in-the-climate-change-discourse-in-the-pacific\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The obfuscation of human rights in the climate change discourse in the Pacific"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#website","url":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/","name":"Griffith Asia Insights","description":"Asia Insights is published by the Griffith Asia Institute. It offers latest commentary on Asia-Pacific affairs and aims to inform and foster academic scholarship, public awareness and considered and responsive policy making.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#organization","name":"Griffith Asia Institute","url":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2023\/10\/GU_Griffith-Asia-Institute_rgb_red_horizontal.png?fit=2930%2C308&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2023\/10\/GU_Griffith-Asia-Institute_rgb_red_horizontal.png?fit=2930%2C308&ssl=1","width":2930,"height":308,"caption":"Griffith Asia Institute"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/griffithasiainstitute\/","https:\/\/twitter.com\/GAIGriffith"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/person\/8121b8aa336749474cbaca380c03029a","name":"Griffith Asia Institute","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f133de65681da3b20ddbc1917f066f458d355d7dfa1f214b10ff4bd135d5ab6c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f133de65681da3b20ddbc1917f066f458d355d7dfa1f214b10ff4bd135d5ab6c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Griffith Asia Institute"},"url":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/author\/gaigriffith-edu-au\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/02\/obscure-human-rights-climate-change-900x500-1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"featured_image_thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/02\/obscure-human-rights-climate-change-900x500-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6916","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6916"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6916\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6917"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/testblogs.griffith.edu.au\/asiainsights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}