In the early 1990s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the gravest effects of climate change could be on human migration, as millions would be displaced by coastal erosion, flooding, and drought. Today, this is considered a reality that is coming ever closer. Yet, there are currently no binding international frameworks dedicated to the issue of climate induced migration. In addition, the current regime of international refugee law is woefully inadequate at responding to the issue. Individuals that do not fall under the refugee definition are thus commonly left with the general scope of international human rights law standards, so-called complementary protection.   On these premises, this thesis sets out to examine the circumstances under which the non-refoulement principle in international human rights law could be applied in the context of climate change effects and especially slow onset processes, and how the principle could potentially be developed. Principally through examining jurisprudence concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, this thesis finds that while there is a possibility for non-refoulement obligations to arise due to the effects of climate change, the precise scope of such protection is unclear. Although case law has emerged and continues to do so, the complex nature of climate induced migration and the undeveloped jurisprudence on this issue leaves important questions unanswered. This thesis finds that there seems to be no obvious response to the question whether climate change is a relevant factor in the legal analysis of non-refoulement claims, and whether it should be. Furthermore, there are great challenges in discerning the required intensity of harm for the threshold to be met and protection to be granted. In addition, this thesis finds that applying the non-refoulement principle in the context of slow onset processes entails several difficulties, particularly concerning the timing and prediction of the harm. It is therefore concluded that, as long as there is no framework dedicated to the issue of climate induced migration, clarity will be much needed in case law as to the scope of non-refoulement obligations in the context of, especially, slow onset processes due to climate change.