<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/ca99ffd63031501e</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/a-panoply-of-consequences/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>A Panoply of Consequences? - Remedies and Reparations in the ICJ’s Climate Opinion</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Tigre, Maria Antonia</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Martini, Camille</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Cohen, Miriam</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Rocha, Armando</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2025-08-12</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Advisory Opinion</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Climate Crisis</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>ICJ</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>International Court of Justice</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Internationaler Gerichtshof | Den Haag</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Klimakatastrophe</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Reparations</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>State Responsibility</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>climate change</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Internationaler Gerichtshof | Den Haag</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Klimakatastrophe</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>Among the most significant – but underexplored – aspects of the ICJ’s climate advisory opinion is its treatment of reparations and remedies. This blog post unpacks the legal consequences outlined by the ICJ, examining what the opinion says – and does not say – about how climate-related harm should be remedied. At the heart of this analysis lies a central question: can the affirmation of legal responsibility, without clear guidance on the design of reparations, meaningfully advance climate justice?</dc:description>
</dc>
