nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/617c9aa77ef3c3ae DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 260218s2026||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/617c9aa77ef3c3ae doi eng 342 23 Adnan, Khan Khalid Author aut Remedies as the Real Test in The Gambia v Myanmar - Full Reparation and the ICJ’s Habit of Saying Less Adnan, Khan Khalid Verfassungsblog 2026-02-18 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The merits hearings in Application of the Genocide Convention (The Gambia v Myanmar) concluded on 29 January 2026, and the Court has entered deliberations, with the judgment date to be announced later. Commentary on this case understandably gravitates to proof, genocidal intent, and whether the ICJ will repeat the caution of its earlier genocide judgments. Those issues matter, but they can obscure a harder question: what does the Court think a genocide judgment is for? The answer is not found in abstract debates about enforceability. It is embedded in remedies. CC BY-SA 4.0 Genocide ICJ internationaln law Myanmar Remedies Rohingya Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/remedies-as-the-real-test-in-the-gambia-v-myanmar/ raw object