The concept of 'environmental refugee' has gained traction in recent decades, yet its legal definition remains contentious. Unlike traditional refugees, who flee persecution, environmental migrants are displaced by slow-onset disasters such as sea-level rise or desertification. Scholars argue that the absence of a formal legal status leaves these individuals without international protection, as the 1951 Refugee Convention does not recognize climate-induced displacement. However, some legal experts propose extending the definition to include environmental factors, while others caution that such an expansion could dilute the convention's original purpose. This debate highlights the tension between humanitarian necessity and legal precision, raising questions about how international law should adapt to emerging global challenges.