<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-04-23T15:53:57Z</responseDate>
  <request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:verfassungsblog.de/96057" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://verfassungsblog.de/oai/repository/</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <header>
      <identifier>oai:verfassungsblog.de/96057</identifier>
      <datestamp>2025-08-19T15:53:43Z</datestamp>
      <setSpec>posts</setSpec>
    </header>
    <metadata>
      <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/statehood-in-the-climate-crisis/</dc:identifier>
        <dc:title>Statehood in the Climate Crisis - The ICJ’s Climate Advisory Opinion and the Presumption of State Continuity</dc:title>
        <dc:creator>Syla, Zana</dc:creator>
        <dc:creator>Kent, Avidan</dc:creator>
        <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
        <dc:date>2025-08-19</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>State Responsibility</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>Statehood</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>climate change</dc:subject>
        <dc:subject>customary law</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>In this blog post, we zero in on the part of the ICJ's climate advisory opinion that concerns statehood. Specifically, we analyze the ICJ’s restatement of the presumption of state continuity, examining both what the Court says and doesn’t say, and what the implications could be. We also consider the individual opinions that discuss statehood and add some brief reflections on the applicability of Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention) and on State extinction. Our analysis is preliminary, and certainly much ink will be spilled on the ICJ’s remarks going forward.</dc:description>
      </dc>
    </metadata>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
