Framing displacement, fracturing commitments: Mexico and Australia in the global climate arena

As climate change intensifies displacement, the absence of a dedicated legal category for climate-displaced persons expands states’ discretion in governing mobility. This article examines how Australia and Mexico construct their positions on climate-induced displacement in multilateral arenas and how these narratives relate to domestic migration governance and treaty engagement. Drawing on securitization theory, scholarship on othering, and work on norm contestation and selective legal engagement, it analyses 86 documents published between 2010 and 2025. The comparison reveals differentiated narratives but convergent outcomes. Mexico invokes dignity and shared responsibility, while Australia emphasizes resilience, adaptation finance, and regional stabilization. Yet neither translates discursive recognition into formal legal protection. Climate mobility is instead absorbed into existing migration categories, while fragmentation between environmental and refugee regimes preserves sovereign discretion. The article argues that climate displacement functions as a liminal governance object: acknowledged politically yet unresolved juridically, allowing humanitarian language to coexist with migration control.