From Plant-for-the-Planet to the International Court of Justice: How Jule Contributes to a Historic Climate Case

In December 2024, one of the most significant court hearings in history took place in The Hague: Nearly 100 countries and intergovernmental organizations discussed before the International Court of Justice the legal obligations of nations in climate protection. The key question was how far these obligations extend and what legal consequences the lack of climate action could have. Numerous media outlets reported on this (The Guardian, Forbes, Mongabay).

For more than four years, our long-standing Climate Justice Ambassador and employee, Jule Schnakenberg, 26, has been involved in this groundbreaking climate case. She is currently pursuing her Master’s degree in International Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford and is actively contributing her knowledge to the fight for climate justice. In this interview, she shares insights into her experiences with the case and explains the role she plays in it.

Hi Jule! Can you briefly introduce yourself and tell us what role you play in the climate case before the International Court of Justice?

Since 2009, when I was just eleven years old, I’ve been active as a Climate Justice Ambassador with Plant-for-the-Planet. Since October 2020, I’ve also been involved with World’s Youth for Climate Justice, a global campaign that successfully initiated an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the climate crisis and human rights. The initiative was started by the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC), a group of committed students from the University of the South Pacific whose lives are already profoundly affected by the consequences of climate change. This advisory opinion seeks to clarify the obligations of states to protect the rights of current and future generations from the effects of the climate crisis. Over the past years, we’ve worked intensively on lobbying, organizing events, and developing communication materials.

What does it mean to you personally to be part of this historic case?

It’s particularly impressive to me how everything started with a bottom-up movement — that students from the Pacific region had the determination to bring the climate crisis to the world’s highest court. These people have worked tirelessly for over 12 years, adhering to their motto, “We are taking the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court!” To see their efforts now bearing fruit gives me hope that we can bring about real, systematic, and structural changes.

What are your hopes for the outcomes, and what could be the possible consequences for the countries involved?

I hope the Court will affirm that states have binding legal obligations to take decisive action against the climate crisis and recognize their historical responsibility.

One key outcome could be that the Court clarifies what states should have avoided: further exacerbating the climate crisis. The consequences could be the “penalties” for past mistakes, with clear commitments for the future: states would have to immediately halt the expansion and use of fossil fuels and legally commit to not doing so in the future. Furthermore, measures such as public apologies, financial compensation, technical support, or the establishment of early warning systems could be required.

Financial compensation, in particular, would be crucial to support countries affected by the climate crisis. Solutions would also need to be created to ensure that Pacific Island nations do not lose their sovereignty and territorial rights due to rising sea levels.

A large number of countries and organizations voiced their opinions in The Hague. How did you experience this broad participation?

The fact that over 100 countries and international organizations spoke at the International Court of Justice underscores the global interest and immense importance of this issue for all states. What was particularly moving was that many Caribbean, Latin American, and Pacific Island nations appeared before the Court for the first time — including four young people who had been working on this campaign for years. It was a unique moment that visibly showcased the strength of the bottom-up movement in the courtroom.

A precedent for this was the nuclear weapons case in the 1990s, where victims of U.S. nuclear weapons tests shared their stories, which had a lasting impact on the judges. Similarly, this time, people spoke directly about the impacts of the climate crisis. Their personal accounts had a tangible effect. Vishal Prasad, Campaign Director of PISFCC, shared the origin story of this initiative and emphasized the importance of the case for the rights of young people in the Pacific and globally. We could have heard a pin drop in the courtroom, and the judges were visibly moved by his contribution.

You were also at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29), where you, alongside the initiators — students from the Pacific region — advocated for the case. Were your voices heard in Azerbaijan?

It was very important for us to maintain political and media attention on the case. We organized an action day on Human Rights Day during the COP, with banners that said “Taking the World’s Biggest Problem to the World’s Highest Court.” It was a mix of hopeful optimism and the need to express our anger and disappointment. It’s also crucial that the UNFCCC is aware of this case, as it will shape the future actions of states.

While there, we also spoke with other initiators of climate cases about how this case could influence the strategic direction of future climate processes. Other climate and human rights issues could potentially find a symbolic “home” under this case’s umbrella.

Some countries, including the United States, have argued that no legal obligations arise from the climate crisis. What is your opinion on these arguments?

To me, these arguments are nothing more than cowardly political excuses attempting to avoid responsibility. These positions are often backed by legal tricks and “legal acrobatics” designed to obscure the true urgency of the climate crisis. Interpretations are twisted so they can evade responsibility. It’s important to emphasize that such views are only held by a small minority. They are quite isolated in this regard.

And that’s why the International Court of Justice is so important: In The Hague, there is a space where states cannot just do whatever they want but must be held accountable. The witness stand, for example, which we helped initiate, was an opportunity to make that accountability tangible. It was set up to ensure that the voices of those most affected by the climate crisis are heard. People from around the world were able to send their messages to the highest court and bring their perspectives directly into this historic case.

If the Court concludes that states have broader legal obligations for climate protection, how could this change international climate policy in the long run?

Such a ruling could close crucial gaps in the current system, particularly regarding justice, fairness, and equality of opportunity — principles that, according to Oxford Professor Lavanya Rajamani, urgently need strengthening. It would set clear standards for what is legally expected of states and could help make climate protection faster and, most importantly, fairer.

Another important outcome would be that it would become clearer when countries are acting contrary to international law. Such a ruling would not only carry moral weight but would also ensure consequences if states fail to meet their legal obligations. This could significantly alter the dynamics of international climate policy and increase pressure on states to act more ambitiously and responsibly.

What happens next? When will decisions be made, and what are the next steps?

We expect the results of the case to be announced in the summer. We’re eager to see whether the Court will take the voices of young people and the particularly affected island nations seriously. I’m cautiously optimistic, as the judges are aware of how many eyes are on them and their decision in this landmark case.

Finally, is there any special message you would like to leave with the readers of our blog?

Absolutely! No matter how big the vision, together you can make it happen — no matter how far you might feel from the “center of power.” Your voice matters, and together we can create significant changes toward climate justice.