<?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/cb6a2a1bcefc5f06</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/vanuatu-resolution-icj/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>“Once the Lawyers Move In, You Know the Problem Is Serious” - Five Questions to Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Tejas Rao, and Markus Gehring</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Cordonier Segger, Marie-Claire</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Rao, Tejas</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Gehring, Markus</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Bönnemann, Maxim</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2026-05-15</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>ICJ</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Internationaler Gerichtshof | Den Haag</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Klima</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Klimaschutz</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Klimawandel</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>State Responsibility</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>United Nations</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>climate change litigation</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Internationaler Gerichtshof | Den Haag</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Klima</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Klimaschutz</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>Last July, the International Court of Justice delivered its unanimous advisory opinion on climate change – and it was unambiguous. Climate obligations are legal, substantive, and enforceable. Eighteen months after we first spoke with Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Tejas Rao and Markus Gehring from the University of Cambridge about the then-upcoming opinion, we asked them to take stock of what has actually changed: in courts, in multilateral diplomacy, and in the growing coalition of states willing to move ahead without waiting for the holdouts.</dc:description>
</dc>
