Podcasts about louvain

France-Marie Chauvelot et Claire Bellet-Odent sont des passionnées de Maurice Zundel. Écrivaine et journaliste, France-Marie Chauvelot a publié l'anthologie très remarquée des textes de Maurice Zundel Je ne crois pas en Dieu, je le vis, qu'elle a préfacé. Plus récemment, elle a écrit et publié Vie et Pensée de Maurice Zundel. Claire Bellet-Odent, ancienne moniale bénédictine, est doctorante en théologie pratique à Louvain-la-Neuve, spécialisée dans la recherche sur les éco-lieux spirituels chrétiens. Toutes les deux sont très engagées dans tout ce qui peut mieux faire connaître Zundel, notamment avec l'Association des Amis de Maurice Zundel. Maurice Zundel est un des plus grands mystiques du XXème siècle. Si, de son vivant, son rayonnement a été souvent empêché par le cléricalisme de son époque, sa spiritualité lumineuse et originale nous parvient aujourd'hui dans toute sa fécondité et sa richesse. D'une grande puissance intellectuelle, Maurice Zundel a surtout développé une approche théologique et spirituelle de Dieu qui favorise l'expérience et non la connaissance ou la démonstration. C'est toute la force de l'une de ses citations les plus révélatrices : « Je ne crois pas en Dieu, je le vis ». France-Marie Chauvelot et Claire Bellet-Odent évoquent ici aussi les liens si forts qui rapprochent Maurice Zundel de grandes figures spirituelles. Comme François d'Assise, qui lui confirme la primauté de l'expérience et de la vie, et qui lui révèle le mystère d'une Trinité divine qui est avant tout l'expression d'une respiration d'amour en générosité, en communion et en pauvreté. Comme aussi Etty Hillesum, qui partage l'expérience d'un Dieu vulnérable, intérieur et pauvre, avec ce prêtre catholique d'origine suisse, qui n'hésitait pas à dire lui-même « Ne parlez pas trop de Dieu, vous allez l'abîmer ». Par leur enthousiasme et leur profonde connaissance de Zundel, France-Marie Chauvelot et Claire Bellet-Odent offrent un témoignage croisé où soufflent à la fois la profondeur, l'humilité, la liberté et la joie… autant de reflets de l'immense sagesse d'un homme dont les souffrances n'ont jamais altéré la foi en l'amour divin infini amour... --------------      Pour lire Vie et pensée de Maurice Zundel, le livre de France-Marie Chauvelot, cliquer ici. Pour découvrir l'AMZ, l'association des amis de Maurice Zundel, cliquer ici. VIVEZ-MOI, VOUS ME COMPRENDREZ    Chers amis, chers auditeurs de Zeteo, Enfin un épisode de Zeteo consacré à Maurice Zundel ! Grâce à deux femmes passionnées et passionnantes, France-Marie Chauvelot et Claire Bellet-Odent, c'est une lacune qui est heureusement et même joyeusement comblée par ce 354ème épisode. Ce qui est peut-être le plus étonnant, avec la pensée de Maurice Zundel, c'est l'impression de la grande puissance, de la liberté, de la profondeur et de l'incroyable « modernité » de sa mystique.  Car il y a des modernités qui comptent, lorsqu'elles parlent un langage qui semble tellement adapté au temps que nous vivons. C'est bien ce que nous a appris l'immense poète Arthur Rimbaud, qui n'avait pas peur de proclamer qu'il fallait être moderne, « absolument moderne ». Avec Maurice Zundel, c'est le chavirement spirituel. Dieu n'est plus tout puissant, intimidant, lointain, vengeur et punitif. Il est le très-bas que Christian Bobin a retrouvé lui aussi chez François d'Assise. C'est aussi un chavirement intellectuel. Dieu est vulnérable. Il est tellement aimant et respectueux de nos libertés que nous pouvons l'abîmer dans nos folies et nos tourments. Il est celui qu'Etty Hillesum nous appelle à aider, pour ne pas l'éteindre en nous. Dieu ne dépend ni de connaissances, ni de nos démonstrations intellectuelles, ni de nos vérités. Il est immédiat. À cet instant, dans le souffle que nous respirons, dans le visage et la réalité de l'autre qui surgit. N'est-ce pas à la fois magnifique et tellement réconfortant ? La divinité ne dépend pas de nous, et bien heureusement ! Elle se rencontre, elle se vit, elle se partage. C'est seulement quand on renonce à le comprendre, qu'on finit par comprendre un peu… Alors, chérissons l'élan formidable impulsé il y a quelques dizaines d'années par ce grand mystique suisse, dont le rayonnement ne cesse aujourd'hui de grandir. Il faut faire connaître Maurice Zundel ! Impatiemment, Guillaume Devoud Pour soutenir l'effort de Zeteo, podcast sans publicité et d'accès entièrement gratuit, vous pouvez faire un don. Il suffit pour cela de cliquer sur l'un des deux boutons ci-dessous, pour le paiement de dons en ligne au profit de l'association Telio qui gère Zeteo. Cliquer ici pour aller sur notre compte de paiement de dons en ligne sécurisé par HelloAsso. Ou cliquer ici pour aller sur notre compte Paypal. Vos dons sont défiscalisables à hauteur de 66% : par exemple, un don de 50€ ne coûte en réalité que 17€. Le reçu fiscal est généré automatiquement et immédiatement à tous ceux qui passent par la plateforme de paiement sécurisé en ligne de HelloAsso Nous délivrons directement un reçu fiscal à tous ceux qui effectuent un paiement autrement (Paypal, chèque à l'association Telio, 116 boulevard Suchet, 75016 Paris – virement : nous écrire à info@zeteo.fr ).   Pour lire d'autres messages de nos auditeurs : cliquer ici. Pour en savoir plus au sujet de Zeteo, cliquer ici. Pour lire les messages de nos auditeurs, cliquer ici. Nous contacter : contact@zeteo.fr Proposer votre témoignage ou celui d'un proche : temoignage@zeteo.fr

Au programme de cette Actu Région :  La Ferme de Biéreau de Louvain-la-Neuve pourrait être rénovée. La taxe déchet fait débat à Nivelles. Genappe veut devenir la ville de la marionnette.

Louvain-la-Neuve : Les "24h vélo" se terminent sur un bilan positif. BW : Recrudescence des cambriolages.  Genappe : Le Groupe BeGenappe dénonce une "dérive fiscale".  Nivelles : le CABW se distingue une nouvelle fois à l'Ekiden de Bruxelles. 

Si vous n'avez pas eu le temps d'écouter en intégralité l'épisode « À quel point faut-il montrer ses émotions à ses enfants ? », nous vous proposons d'en écouter un extrait. Moïra Mikolajczak, professeure de psychologie de la santé et des émotions à l'Université catholique de Louvain, explique le travail de régulation de ses émotions. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Từ ngày 08 đến 10/10/2025, tổng thống Vladimir Putin có chuyến thăm cấp nhà nước ba ngày tại Tajikistan vào thời điểm các nước Trung Á đang có những chuyển đổi địa chính trị trong khi Nga tìm cách duy trì ảnh hưởng đang dần suy yếu của mình do cuộc chiến xâm lược Ukraina. Về mặt chính thức, tổng thống Nga đến thủ đô Dushanbe để dự hai cuộc họp quan trọng : Thượng đỉnh Nga và năm nước Trung Á Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan, Ouzbekistan, Tajikistan, và Turkmenistan, và Thượng đỉnh Cộng đồng Các Quốc gia Độc lập (CIS) giữa Nga, năm nước Trung Á cùng với Belarus, Armenia và Azerbaijan. Trung Á : Sân sau chiến lược truyền thống của Nga Theo giới quan sát, những cuộc họp này còn là cách để ông Putin chứng tỏ Nga vẫn duy trì kiểm soát đối với « các nước láng giềng gần », những nước nằm trong vùng ảnh hưởng của Matxcơva, đặc biệt là tại Trung Á, đang trở thành vùng tranh giành ảnh hưởng giữa Trung Quốc và phương Tây. Nhìn từ góc độ lịch sử, Trung Á từ lâu được xem như là sân sau chiến lược của Nga. Và mỗi nước Cộng hòa có những nét đặc biệt và riêng biệt trong quỹ đạo thuộc địa Nga và Xô Viết cũng như là trong mối quan hệ của họ đối với Nga. Các mối liên hệ trong nhiều lĩnh vực kinh tế, thương mại, giáo dục và an ninh, quân sự cũng từ đó được siết chặt hơn. Nhà nghiên cứu về Trung Á đương đại, Isabelle Ohayon, trợ lý giám đốc Trung tâm Nghiên cứu về thế giới Nga, Kavkaz và Trung Âu, trên đài phát thanh France Culture, ngày 08/04/2025, nhắc đến Kazakhstan như một ví dụ điển hình : « Kazakhstan có mối liên hệ rất chặt chẽ và lâu đời với Nga, bởi vì nước này là quốc gia đầu tiên, là không gian đầu tiên bị đế chế Nga đô hộ ngay từ đầu thế kỷ XVIII. Đây cũng là đất nước, trước khi Liên Xô sụp đổ, có cộng đồng cư dân Nga và nói tiếng Nga đông nhất. Người Kazakhstan chỉ chiếm có 39% dân số vào năm 1991 so với tỷ lệ 70% hiện nay. Điều đó cho thấy là hiện tượng Nga hóa, sự hiện diện của Nga, cũng như sự gắn bó với nền văn hóa lớn của Nga theo nghĩa chung đã thâm nhập, thấm nhuần sâu sắc tại Kazakhstan hơn là các nước Cộng hòa khác. Nếu chỉ xét về việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ, tiếng Nga được dùng phổ biến, song ngữ phát triển khá mạnh mẽ ». Năm 1991, Liên Xô tan rã, nhưng các mối quan hệ đó vẫn tồn tại. Theo nữ tiến sĩ Laetitia Spetschinsky, chuyên ngành Quan hệ Quốc tế tại trường đại học Công giáo Louvain, Bỉ, trả lời phỏng vấn báo Bỉ L'Echo, « sự tan rã một đế chế không có nghĩa là toàn bộ cấu trúc được xây dựng trong suốt chiều dài lịch sử bị sụp đổ : Hệ thống liên thông đường sắt và các tiêu chuẩn công nghiệp vẫn được duy trì ». Về điểm này, nhà nhiếp ảnh người Ouzbekistan Timur Karpov, trong một chương trình trên đài truyền hình ARTE (19/11/2024), có cùng nhận định : « Nga luôn gây sức ép mạnh mẽ đối với Uzbekistan. Mối quan hệ giữa hai nước đã bắt đầu phát triển trong suốt thời kỳ Xô Viết. Vào thời điểm đó, toàn bộ giới lãnh đạo đất nước, bằng cách này hay cách khác, đều có liên hệ chặt chẽ với Nga. Hệ quả là việc nước tôi khó thể tách rời khỏi Nga cũng là lẽ tất nhiên ». Chiến tranh Ukraina : Bàn cờ Trung Á được xáo lại Nhưng việc Nga phát động chiến tranh xâm lược Ukraina đã làm thay đổi bàn cờ địa chính trị tại Trung Á. Những phát biểu của ông Putin sẵn sàng dùng vũ lực để chiếm lại những vùng lãnh thổ từng thuộc về đế chế Nga hay để bảo vệ kiều dân Nga ở hải ngoại càng làm gia tăng nỗi lo về an ninh tại các nước Trung Á. Điều này thôi thúc các nước trong khu vực cùng với một số nước vùng Kavkaz bắt đầu mở rộng các mối quan hệ với nhiều nước đối tác cũng như đối thủ của Nga, từ Trung Quốc, Liên Hiệp Châu Âu, cho đến Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ hay các nước Vùng Vịnh, nhằm tìm cách bảo vệ trước nguy cơ một cuộc tấn công mới từ Nga. Đối với năm nước Trung Á, cuộc chiến Ukraina một thời cơ tốt để thiết lập các mối quan hệ mới với nhiều cường quốc khác. Vladislav Inozemstsev, cố vấn đặc biệt tại Viện Nghiên cứu về Truyền thông Trung Đông, trả lời hãng Bloomberg, lưu ý, « tầm ảnh hưởng của Putin đang suy yếu, nhưng sẽ không kéo dài bao lâu ». Trong số các nước tận dụng khoảng trống quyền lực do Nga để lại, Trung Quốc là bên hưởng lợi nhiều nhất. Phóng sự của ký giả Heike Smith, ban tiếng Pháp đài RFI, nêu trường hợp cửa khẩu Khorgos, nằm giữa Trung Quốc và Kazakhstan. Tại đây, các hoạt động vận chuyển hàng hóa từ Trung Quốc sang châu Âu tăng vọt ngoạn mục kể từ khi chiến tranh Ukraina bùng nổ, theo như mô tả của Hicham Belmaachi, một doanh nhân người Maroc. « Từ khi xảy ra chiến tranh ở Ukraina, chúng tôi nhận thấy nhiều công ty quốc tế, đặc biệt là các hãng vận tải biển lớn nhất, đã rút khỏi Nga. Điều này đồng nghĩa với việc các hãng lớn vận tải đường biển quốc tế đã ngừng hoạt động tại Nga. Vì vậy, chúng tôi đã phải thiết kế lại hoàn toàn hệ thống kho bãi tại khu vực này. Cụ thể là Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan và Kyrgyzstan, thay vì nhập khẩu phần lớn sản phẩm từ Nga, nay đã chuyển hướng sang Trung Quốc ». Mối tương quan lực lượng cũng vì thế có thay đổi. Nga không còn thế ưu việt tại Trung Á như trước đây. Nếu như Matxcơva vẫn thống trị khu vực trong lĩnh vực an ninh, Nga lại bị Trung Quốc cạnh tranh trong lĩnh vực thương mại, công nghệ và thậm chí cả ngoại giao. Về điểm này, nhà chính trị học người Kazakhstan, Dossym Satpaiev, giám đốc trung tâm tư vấn Risks Assessment Group, trả lời RFI, nhận định cuộc chiến tại Ukraina đã mang đến một cơ hội tốt cho phép Kazakhstan giữ khoảng cách với Matxcơva. « Đúng là chúng tôi có đường biên giới rất dài với Nga. Khoảng 20% ​​dân số là người Nga. Dầu mỏ xuất khẩu của chúng tôi vẫn đi qua lãnh thổ Nga. Hơn nữa, một phần lãnh thổ Kazakhstan phụ thuộc vào nguồn cung cấp điện của Nga. Kazakhstan cũng nhận khí đốt từ Nga. Vì vậy, Nga vẫn có ảnh hưởng đối với Kazakhstan. Nhưng mặt khác, cuộc chiến ở Ukraina đã tạo cho Kazakhstan một cơ hội tốt để dần dần tách khỏi Matxcơva. Kazakhstan giờ đây phải tìm kiếm một đối trọng địa chính trị với Nga. » Trung Á : Thách thức mới cho Nga Không chỉ có Trung Quốc, nhiều cường quốc phương Tây cũng bắt đầu dòm ngó đến Trung Á, từ Liên Hiệp Châu Âu, Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ, cho đến nước Mỹ của Donald Trump, thông qua các thỏa thuận về đầu tư khai thác khoáng sản, vận chuyển và năng lượng. Trên đài RFI, Michael Levystone, đồng sáng lập Đài Quan sát Tân Á – Âu, chuyên gia về Châu Âu và vùng Á-Âu tại INALCO, nhận xét tiếp : « Đây là khu vực có tiềm năng lớn về năng lượng tái tạo, chẳng hạn như năng lượng mặt trời ở Uzbekistan, năng lượng gió trên bờ biển Caspi của Kazakhstan và Turkmenistan, và thủy điện, vốn đã rất phát triển ở Kyrgyzstan và Tajikistan. Một khu vực nằm ở ngã tư của các cường quốc : Nga, Trung Quốc, Iran, và cũng không xa Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ. Trong bối cảnh các lệnh trừng phạt rất khắc nghiệt đối với nền kinh tế Nga nhằm trả đũa cho cuộc xâm lược Ukraina ngày 24 tháng 2 năm 2022, khu vực này một lần nữa thực sự trở thành trung tâm thương mại xuyên khu vực giữa Trung Quốc và Liên Hiệp Châu Âu theo hướng Đông-Tây, và giữa Nga và Nam Á theo hướng Bắc-Nam. Đây là những quốc gia, các nước Cộng hòa Trung Á, đang nỗ lực tối đa hóa tiềm năng địa kinh tế mới này, gắn liền với việc điều chỉnh quy mô các hành lang giao thông đi qua khu vực này để kết nối các cường quốc kinh tế với nhau. » Dù vậy, giới chuyên gia đều nhận định, bất chấp cuộc chiến tại Ukraina, tầm ảnh hưởng của Nga tuy suy giảm, nhưng Matxcơva vẫn còn hiện diện đáng kể về mặt chính trị, kinh tế và quân sự trong vùng. Trang Bloomberg lưu ý, hàng triệu di dân Trung Á đang sinh sống và làm việc tại Nga gởi tiền, góp phần nuôi sống nền kinh tế trong nước. Kazakhstan, Kirghizistan và Armenia là thành viên của khu vực thuế quan chung do Nga điều hành. Còn Tajikistan tham gia vào khối liên minh phòng thủ với Matxcơva, trong khi Kazakhstan là quốc gia duy nhất trong vùng không có căn cứ quân sự Nga. Trong bối cảnh mới này, theo quan điểm của ông Michael Levystone, mục tiêu chuyến công du Trung Á của tổng thống Putin là nhằm chứng minh Nga vẫn có ảnh hưởng trong vùng. Trên làn sóng RFI, ông nhận định : « Nga đang phải đối mặt với sự cạnh tranh gay gắt từ Trung Quốc và các nước vùng Vịnh, đặc biệt là Các Tiểu vương quốc Ả Rập Thống nhất và Ả Rập Xê Út. Về đất hiếm, Liên minh Châu Âu và Hoa Kỳ rất chú ý và ngày càng hiện diện nhiều hơn. Năng lượng hạt nhân theo truyền thống là một trong những điểm mạnh trong chính sách ngoại giao kinh tế của Matxcơva trong khu vực. Ngoài năng lượng hạt nhân, còn có vũ khí Nga. Vấn đề nhỏ là tại Uzbekistan, Rosatom đã trúng thầu xây dựng một nhà máy điện hạt nhân, nhưng công suất lắp đặt đã bị tổng thống Mirziuyev hạ xuống đáng kể vào năm 2024. Và tại Kazakhstan, dự án xây dựng nhà máy điện hạt nhân trên Hồ Balkash thực tế đã được chính quyền Astana trao cho Rosatom vào đầu năm nay. Bộ trưởng Năng lượng Kazakhstan khi đó đã tuyên bố Trung Quốc sẽ được trao thầu xây dựng một dự án hạt nhân khác tại Kazakhstan. Vì vậy, chúng ta có thể thấy rõ ràng ngay cả ở đây, Nga cũng không hoàn toàn có chủ quyền. Các nước Trung Á, trong trường hợp này là Kazakhstan, vẫn có phản xạ muốn cân bằng mọi thứ để tránh, về cơ bản, giao phó một phần đáng kể an ninh năng lượng của họ cho riêng Nga. »

Faut-il réprimer sa colère, sa fatigue, son agacement devant ses enfants ? Qu'est-ce que ça fait aux parents d'être en permanence en tension avec leurs propres émotions ? Et est-ce qu'il ne vaudrait pas mieux les exprimer ?Dans cet épisode, Marine Revol s'entretient avec Moïra Mikolajczak, professeure de psychologie de la santé et des émotions à l'Université catholique de Louvain et co-autrice du livre Le burn-out parental et fait entendre les témoignages de Clara et Marie. Ensemble, elles de répression et de régulation des émotions, de règles d'affichage émotionnel et de la pente glissante qui mène vers l'épuisement parental. Faites des gosses est une production Louie Media, présentée par Marine Revol. Elle a écrit et tourné cet épisode. Il a été monté par Eléonore Claude et réalisé par Anna Buy. La musique est de Jean Thévenin. La prise de son et le mix sont du studio La Fugitive. Elsa Berthault est en charge de la production. Vous souhaitez soutenir la création et la diffusion des projets de Louie Media ? Vous pouvez le faire via le Club Louie. Vous pouvez aussi vous abonner à Louie+ sur Apple Podcasts pour écouter les épisodes sans publicités et nos séries en avant-première. Chaque participation est précieuse. Nous vous proposons un soutien sans engagement, annulable à tout moment, soit en une seule fois, soit de manière régulière. Au nom de toute l'équipe de Louie : MERCI !Suivez Faites des gosses sur Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Deezer.Suivez Louie Media sur Instagram, Facebook, et YouTube. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Il y a des moments dans la vie où tout ce qu'on souhaite, c'est simplement être près de quelqu'un qu'on aime. Mais quand cette personne est hospitalisée loin de chez nous, ce vœu tout simple devient vite un véritable parcours du combattant.Entre les trajets quotidiens, les nuits à l'hôtel, les locations d'appartements temporaires, la fatigue, le stress et la culpabilité de ne pas être assez présent… la situation peut vite devenir épuisante, moralement et financièrement. C'est pour répondre à ce besoin que deux Belges, Karen et Robin, ont créé Stay Close.Leur idée est née d'une histoire très personnelle : leur tante avait été hospitalisée dans une autre ville, et pour éviter à leur oncle de longs allers-retours, ils l'ont accueilli chez eux. Ils ont alors réalisé à quel point pouvoir rester proche change tout : retrouver un peu d'intimité, se reposer, se doucher, souffler, être à deux pas de l'hôpital… Ce simple confort du quotidien peut transformer la manière de traverser une épreuve.Stay Close s'adresse à tous ceux qu'on appelle les aidants proches, ces conjoints, parents, enfants ou amis qui accompagnent une personne malade. Rien qu'à Louvain, par exemple, plus de 55 000 patients sont hospitalisés chaque année, et parmi eux, des centaines d'aidants dorment parfois dans leur voiture ou renoncent à rester sur place faute de solution abordable. Dans le même temps, des chambres d'amis inoccupées existent tout autour des hôpitaux.C'est là que la magie opère : Stay Close agit comme un Airbnb solidaire, non commercial et fondé sur la générosité. L'aidant (ou un travailleur social) introduit une demande sur la plateforme, et celle-ci le met en relation avec une famille d'accueil disponible à proximité.Le principe repose sur le modèle du « payez ce que vous pouvez » : il n'y a aucune obligation financière. Certains hôtes accueillent gratuitement, d'autres acceptent une petite participation pour couvrir les frais, mais toujours dans un esprit d'entraide et de respect mutuel.Et au-delà du logement, ce projet met aussi en lumière une réalité trop souvent invisibilisée : celle des aidants proches, ces héros discrets qui accompagnent au quotidien un proche malade, parfois au prix de leur propre santé mentale et physique.Avec Stay Close, Karen et Robin ont voulu créer plus qu'une plateforme : une chaîne de solidarité. Un moyen simple, concret et humain de rappeler qu'en période de maladie, la proximité est aussi un soin.Vous aimez ce contenu ? Alors n'hésitez pas à vous abonner, à lui donner des étoiles et à partager ce podcast autour de vous. Ça nous aide à nous faire connaître et à essaimer les idées constructives qui rendent le monde plus joli !Une chronique signée Leslie Rijmenams à retrouver (aussi) sur Nostalgie et www.nostalgie.be

Comment réenchanter les rites, de la naissance au mariage, à la séparation ou au deuil ? Quel rituel autour d'une union «loin de l'Église» ? Que faire autour d'une euthanasie ? Quel acte rituel de réparation après un viol ? Comment célébrer pour ces joies et ces peines en dehors des sept sacrements de l'Église catholique ? Célébrer tout au long de la vie, c'est ce que propose Gabriel Ringlet, prêtre belge qui a fondé l'École des rites, en partage avec des croyants et des non-croyants. Invité : Gabriel Ringlet, prêtre et écrivain, auteur du livre paru en septembre 2025 : «Des rites pour la vie» (Éd. Albin Michel), ancien journaliste et enseignant, ancien vice-recteur à l'Université de Louvain, fondateur de l'École des Rites.

Comment réenchanter les rites, de la naissance au mariage, à la séparation ou au deuil ? Quel rituel autour d'une union «loin de l'Église» ? Que faire autour d'une euthanasie ? Quel acte rituel de réparation après un viol ? Comment célébrer pour ces joies et ces peines en dehors des sept sacrements de l'Église catholique ? Célébrer tout au long de la vie, c'est ce que propose Gabriel Ringlet, prêtre belge qui a fondé l'École des rites, en partage avec des croyants et des non-croyants. Invité : Gabriel Ringlet, prêtre et écrivain, auteur du livre paru en septembre 2025 : «Des rites pour la vie» (Éd. Albin Michel), ancien journaliste et enseignant, ancien vice-recteur à l'Université de Louvain, fondateur de l'École des Rites.

When Europe is in a battle, is there room to fight for a social Europe? This question is explored in a conversation between Philippe Van Parijs, a main defender of the concept of an unconditional basic income and Hoover Chair of Economic & Social Ethics at the University of Louvain in Belgium, and Stefanos Gandolfo, the Director of the Columbia Global Center in Athens, Greece.

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Katia Coutant, Alban Guyomarc'h & Yann Robert : General Discussion, introduced and chaired by Young ResearchersPanel 4: General Conclusions and DiscussionColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Fabio Tronchetti : Rethinking "Common Heritage of Mankind" in the 21st Century: a Pathway towards Enabling Lunar Activities for the Benefit of AllPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Michela Massimi : Lunar Grabbing. On Scientific Commoning in Outer Space (and Oceanic Seabed too)Panel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Margaret Moore : Exploration and Exploitation: Territorial Rights in Outer SpacePanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Jonathan B. Wiener : Space as Province, Property, and Planetary Protection: Risk and the Rise of the InterplanetaryPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Stéphanie Ruphy : CommentPanel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Yannick Radi : General Conclusions Panel 4: General Conclusions and DiscussionColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Anna Stilz: Sovereignty and Property in Celestial ResourcesSovereignty and Property in Celestial ResourcesPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Philippe Achilleas : International Space Law Facing the Commercial Exploitation of Celestial Body ResourcesPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Isabelle Sourbès-Verger: CommentCommentPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Alex Mills: Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Lukas Rass-Masson: Property in Outer Space and Competition between Legal Orders from a Private Law PerspectiveProperty in Outer Space and Competition between Legal Orders from a Private Law PerspectivePanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Katrina M. Wyman: Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Stephan Hobe: Sovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space LawSovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space LawPanel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer SpaceColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Michael Byers : Que le jeu commence ! Commercial Space Mining and the Politics of Treaty InterpretationPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Alessandro Morbidelli: Outer Space Exploration and Use: What Resources Out There?Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026Colloque - The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy: Property in Outer Space: Context, Stakes and PossibilitiesColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

durée : 00:02:57 - Côté Belgique Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

Samantha BessonDroit international des institutionsCollège de FranceAnnée 2025-2026The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & PhilosophyColloque - Niki Aloupi : CommentPanel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including CommoningColloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025PrésentationAs it is the case in other (marine or polar) "spaces" of international law usually defined negatively as areas beyond the (territorial) jurisdiction of States, a "non-appropriation" principle applies to the outer space (art. II 1967 Outer Space Treaty; art. 11(2-3) 1979 Moon Agreement). Despite later clarifications in the 1979 Moon Agreement, States still disagree, however, about both the material scope of the principle of non-appropriation (celestial bodies only, or both the bodies and their extracted resources) and its personal scope (public appropriation in the form of sovereign claims by States only, or both public and private appropriation). They also disagree about the implications of the second, more positive principle that was added in the Moon Agreement, i.e. that of "common heritage of mankind" (art. 11(1) Moon Agreement) and about the content of the further principle of "equitable access and sharing of benefits" (art. 11(7d) Moon Agreement) that applies to the common exploitation of celestial resources. In any case, due to the limited number of State ratifications (17 to date), the Moon Agreement is not considered as an expression of universally binding customary law. The same applies to the international regime for the common exploitation of the natural resources of celestial bodies foreseen by the agreement (art. 11(5-7) and 18 Moon Agreement).This disagreement is sharpened by the tension between those more recent principles, including non-appropriation through use, and the original principles of the international law of "areas beyond national jurisdiction", i.e. the principle of "freedom of exploration and use" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty) and its twin principle, i.e. the "freedom of scientific investigation" (art. I(3) Outer Space Treaty; art. 6(1) Moon Agreement). Those original principles have been left untouched by the new ones, indeed, and seem to accommodate free appropriation of resources through use, even if those freedoms have to be "carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries" (art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty; art. 4(1) Moon Agreement). The same tensions between the original principles and the subsequent ones also apply within other spaces of international law such as the high seas and deep seabed and have not been resolved by the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction.This indeterminacy has led certain States and regional organizations to adopt domestic (public and private) legislation, develop soft law and/or conclude bilateral agreements to secure the property rights and investments of private companies authorized by those States to explore and exploit celestial bodies and their resources. Their hope thereby is to shape what is called, in international treaty law, a "subsequent practice in the application of treaties establishing an agreement". If those States were to succeed, that practice could influence the interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. After all, this is exactly what some States did in 1982 after the adoption of the Convention of the Law on the Sea and following their disagreements about the organization of the international regime for the common exploitation of the deep seabed resources in the convention. So-doing, they steered that regime towards the 1994 compromise and the modification of the convention that ensued and, arguably, led to that regime's contemporary deadlock.This situation raises numerous questions about the kind of international law of outer space the international community of peoples should aim at developing. This is especially the case if we are to prevent the "enclosure" through public and private appropriation of what art. I(1) Outer Space Treaty refers to as the "province of all mankind". It also raises difficult questions about the state of our legal imaginary at a turning point of life on Earth. Are our legal categories themselves at risk of being prematurely "enclosed" by the binary opposition between (State) territory and space, by the opposition between the "common" and the public or the private, and by a given articulation of property to sovereignty?This two-day conference will bring public and private international lawyers together with political and legal philosophers to discuss the complex issues raised by property in outer space, including its relations to the notions of territory, jurisdiction and sovereignty, but also the international legal status of scientific research, data and samples. The discussions will be organized around three central issues: (i) the relations between property, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and their implications in outer space; (ii) the prospects of "commoning" in outer space, and of a distinct future international institution and regime to govern the common use of celestial resources as currently discussed by the United Nations' Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS); and (iii) the public and common good of science, and its implications for a better distinction between scientific "exploration" and commercial "use", exploitation or appropriation of and by science in outer space.Participants/Speakers: Philippe Achilleas (University of Paris-Saclay); Michael Byers (University of British Columbia, Vancouver); Isabel Feichtner (University of Würzburg); Stephan Hobe (University of Cologne); Maria Manoli (University of Aberdeen); Michela Massimi (University of Edinburgh); Alex Mills (University College, London); Margaret Moore (Queen's University, Ontario); Yannick Radi (Catholic University of Louvain); Lukas Rass-Masson (University of Toulouse Capitole); Anna Stilz (University of Berkeley); Fabio Tronchetti (University of Northumbria); Jonathan B. Wiener (Duke University); Katrina M. Wyman (New York University).

Trois villes belges. Trois visions mais une seule qui deviendra capitale européenne de la Culture en 2030. Prenant la suite de Mons qui l'a été en 2015, une de ces trois villes va donc remettre la Belgique sous les projecteurs de la culture européenne. Le verdict tombe ce mercredi et le suspense est à son comble...Mais derrière, pour la ville qui l'emportera, l'enjeu est bien plus grand qu'un simple label : c'est l'occasion de se réinventer, de renforcer son identité, de la promouvoir et de l'enrichir. A défaut de vous donner en avant-première le résultat, nous revenons aujourd'hui sur le processus de candidature, les défis que cela implique pour chaque ville et les promesses que ce titre offre. On décrypte tout ça avec Daniel Couvreur, journaliste au pôle Culture. « À propos », c'est notre sélection de l'actualité, du lundi au vendredi dès 5 heures sur Le Soir et votre plateforme de podcasts préférée. Retrouvez tous les podcasts du journal « Le Soir » sur https://podcasts.lesoir.be

Trois villes belges. Trois visions mais une seule qui deviendra capitale européenne de la Culture en 2030. Prenant la suite de Mons qui l'a été en 2015, une de ces trois villes va donc remettre la Belgique sous les projecteurs de la culture européenne. Le verdict tombe ce mercredi et le suspense est à son comble...Mais derrière, pour la ville qui l'emportera, l'enjeu est bien plus grand qu'un simple label : c'est l'occasion de se réinventer, de renforcer son identité, de la promouvoir et de l'enrichir. A défaut de vous donner en avant-première le résultat, nous revenons aujourd'hui sur le processus de candidature, les défis que cela implique pour chaque ville et les promesses que ce titre offre. On décrypte tout ça avec Daniel Couvreur, journaliste au pôle Culture.

Au programme de cette Actu Région :  L'inauguration de la première jonction de la cyclostrade entre Wavre et Louvain-la-Neuve. Tension au collège communal nivellois. Walibi accueillera des enfants défavorisés le 27 septembre.

Imaginez l'Europe scientifique des années 1920. À cette époque, la plupart des savants sont convaincus que l'univers est figé, éternel, immuable. Pourtant, dans un petit bureau de Louvain, en Belgique, un homme s'apprête à bouleverser cette certitude. Cet homme, c'est Georges Lemaître. Fait singulier : il est à la fois prêtre catholique et brillant physicien.Lemaître lit avec passion les travaux d'Einstein sur la relativité générale. En parallèle, il suit avec intérêt les observations de certains astronomes, qui montrent que la lumière des galaxies lointaines semble « tirée » vers le rouge : un indice que ces galaxies s'éloignent. Alors, une idée surgit : et si l'univers tout entier était en expansion ?En 1927, il publie une hypothèse qui va faire scandale. Si l'univers s'agrandit aujourd'hui, c'est qu'en remontant le temps, il devait être jadis concentré en un seul point, incroyablement dense et chaud. Lemaître parle d'« atome primitif » : une minuscule graine contenant toute la matière et l'énergie, avant de se fragmenter pour donner naissance au cosmos. C'est la première ébauche de ce qu'on appellera, bien plus tard, le Big Bang.La communauté scientifique est partagée. Einstein lui-même, lorsqu'il découvre cette théorie, admet qu'elle est « élégante », mais il n'y croit pas. Et en 1949, un rival, Fred Hoyle, qui défendait l'idée d'un univers éternel, se moque à la radio en parlant de « Big Bang ». Un sobriquet ironique… qui deviendra le nom officiel.Mais il y a un détail qui intrigue le grand public : Lemaître est prêtre. Un homme de foi qui propose une origine à l'univers ? Cela ressemble trop à la Création racontée par la Bible. Le Vatican s'en réjouit et tente même de faire de cette théorie une confirmation scientifique de la Genèse. Mais Lemaître s'y oppose fermement. Pour lui, la science explique le « comment » du monde, et la religion le « pourquoi ». Jamais il ne voulait que ses équations servent de preuve théologique.La suite appartient à l'histoire. En 1965, deux ingénieurs américains découvrent par hasard un bruit étrange capté par leur antenne. Ce « bruit », c'est en réalité le rayonnement fossile, l'écho lumineux de l'explosion initiale. Dès lors, la théorie de Lemaître devient incontournable.Ainsi, derrière l'une des idées les plus révolutionnaires du XXᵉ siècle se cache un homme à la double vocation. Un savant qui, en conciliant rigueur scientifique et foi personnelle, a montré que les chemins de la vérité pouvaient se croiser… sans jamais se confondre. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

durée : 00:26:52 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - Après des mois de pression exercée par Donald Trump, la Réserve Fédérale américaine a consenti à une baisse de ses taux d'intérêts. Alors que sa neutralité technocratique est sérieusement remise en cause depuis 2008, la Fed craint désormais pour son indépendance politique. - réalisation : Camille Mati - invités : Antoine de Cabanes Doctorant en science politique et économie politique à l'Université catholique de Louvain

durée : 00:58:53 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - Alors que Donald Trump accentue sa pression sur la Réserve Fédérale, nous analyserons le rôle politique et économique que joue la Fed aux Etats-Unis. Nous continuerons ensuite d'interroger le rapport des économistes à la guerre avec le cas de J.M. Keynes. - invités : Antoine de Cabanes Doctorant en science politique et économie politique à l'Université catholique de Louvain ; Raphaël Fèvre Maître de conférence en Sciences économiques à l'Université Côte d'Azur et historien de la pensée économique

Description Professeur ordinaire à l'Université catholique de Louvain, Alain Jonas est spécialisé en sciences des matériaux organiques. Ses travaux de recherche ont d'abord porté sur les nanotechnologies, pour ensuite s'intéresser aux polymères, à l'auto-assemblage, à la chimie des surfaces et à leurs applications dans les domaines de la biologie et des matériaux fonctionnels. [0:00:33] Chapitre 1 : Introduction [0:36:22] Chapitre  2 : Le recyclage  [0:55:16] Chapitre 3 : Les nouveaux designs [1:05:55] Chapitre 4 : Les questions personnelles URL pour les notes de l'épisode : https://www.podcastics.com/podcast/episode/les-plastiques-384375/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.  

Policy Seminar | IFPRI Policy Seminar Mobility in a Fragile World: Evidence to Inform Policy Co-organized by IFPRI, the CGIAR Science Program on Food Frontiers and Security, and the Louvain Institute of Data Analysis and Modeling in Economics and Statistics (LIDAM), IRES | Part of the Fragility to Stability Seminar Series September 18, 2025 Migration today reflects a complex interplay of demographic pressures, conflict, poverty, climate change, and economic shocks. Worldwide, one in every seven people is a migrant—that is, someone who changes his or her country of usual residence, irrespective of the reason for migration—or a refugee forced to leave his or her home, often without warning, for reasons including war, violence, or persecution. Over the past two decades, international migration and forced displacement have surged, with more than 100 million additional people on the move—a large share of whom originate from rural areas, driven by a lack of economic opportunities, environmental degradation, and insecurity. The number of refugees has doubled since the early 2000s, with most hosted by low- and middle-income countries. Ongoing conflicts and intensifying climate crises have compounded vulnerabilities, leaving 80% of displaced people facing acute food insecurity. Climate change-related displacement disproportionately affects women, who are also at heightened risk of violence and exploitation during migration journeys and in host communities. This policy seminar will explore these complex dynamics and assess how economic analysis, machine learning, and policy innovation can contribute to more inclusive, equitable, and effective responses to migration and forced displacement. Moderator Welcome Remarks Katrina Kosec, Interim Deputy Director, CGIAR Science Program on Food Frontiers and Security; Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Opening Remarks Ruth Hill, Director, Markets, Trade, and Institutions, IFPRI Setting the Stage: The Migration Challenge Anna Maria Mayda, Professor of Economics, School of Foreign Service and Department of Economics, and Incoming Director, Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM), Georgetown University (GU) Research in Action: This three-part session will showcase how current research is shaping better migration policies Silvia Peracchi, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute of Economics and Social Research (IRES), Louvain Institute of Data Analysis and Modeling in Economics and Statistics (LIDAM), UCLouvain Francisco Ceballos, Research Fellow, IFPRI Thomas Ginn, Research Fellow, Center for Global Development Building the Evidence Base for Smarter Policy in Fragile and Conflict-Affected Contexts: What Are the Gaps and Needs Panelists Andrew Harper, Special Advisor on Climate Action, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Damien Jusselme, Head, Data Science and Analytics (Foresight), International Organization for Migration (IOM) Jean-Francois Maystadt, Professor, Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS), Louvain Institute of Data Analysis and Modeling in Economics and Statistics (LIDAM) / Institut de Recherches Économiques et Sociales (IRES), Université catholique de Louvain, and Lancaster University Management School Closing Remarks Kate Ambler, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI More about this Event: https://www.ifpri.org/event/mobility-in-a-fragile-world-evidence-to-inform-policy/ Subscribe IFPRI Insights newsletter and event announcements at www.ifpri.org/content/newsletter-subscription

Un voyage en enfer. La mort , au bout de trois journées d'humiliations perverses et de tortures sadiques d'un jeune homme de vingt ans, Sanda Dia. Non pas séquestré par un criminel psychopathe mais pris en otage par ses propres camarades d'une université de Louvain, en Belgique. Contraint d'exécuter leurs ordres jusqu'à étouffer sous les brimades et à succomber.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Depuis la Renaissance, l'Antiquité classique, gréco-romaine, a fait figure de modèle de la modernité pour ses influences culturelles et politiques. Depuis quelque temps, cette exemplarité est remise en question, et est souvent pointée du doigt comme étant la justification d'une culture de domination. Esclavagisme, misogynie, ethnocentrisme: aa culture classique, et les études classiques ont-elles mauvaise presse? Spécialiste de la réception de l'Antiquité grecque à la Renaissance et professeure émérite à l'Université Catholique de Louvain, Monique Mund-Dopchie (MMD) propose une démonstration critique des limites du modèle de filiation à la culture classique qui nourrit les sociétés occidentales. Elle nous invite à changer notre regard sur cet héritage, en laissant parler d'eux même les auteurs et les vestiges d'une société classique qui redeviennent alors étonnants et stimulants. Sujets traités : héritage , antiquité, grecque, Renaissance, modernité, esclavagisme, misogynie, ethnocentrisme Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Nous sommes au tout début des années 1650, à l'université de Louvain. C'est au cours de logique que l'on rencontre Cornelius van Wijckersloot, un étudiant originaire d'Utrecht. Il prend note de ce que lui dictent ses professeurs Arnoldus Mennekens et Nicolas Du Bois. Comme le font ses camarades, Cornelius complète son manuscrit par de nombreux dessins. Ainsi, représente-t-il une scène de carnaval où l'on peut voir un élève déguisé en fou, coiffé d'un étrange chapeau. Un fou qui danse en tenant un gobelet dans sa main droite. A ses côtés, figure un joueur de tambour. Quel rapport avec le cours de logique ? Nous allons bien voir, car, bien plus que de simples agréments, les illustrations qui accompagnent les notes de cours sont de véritables mines d'informations en tous genres. Ces notes de cours sont elles-mêmes bien plus que des outils d'apprentissage, elles ont une visée pédagogique et témoignent d'un environnement social, politique et religieux. Elles aident à comprendre et à retenir la matière, mais aussi à lutter contre l'ennui. Elles sont l'expression d'un caractère, d'une forme d'humour, d'une appartenance à une communauté. Retournons donc à l'école, mettons-nous dans la peau d'un étudiant au travail, prenons note et soyons créatifs. Avec nous : Gwendoline de Mûelenaere (UCLouvain), chargée de recherche FNRS. Coordinatrice de l'ouvrage « « Embellir le savoir – Les notes de cours des étudiants hier et aujourd'hui « ; PUL (Presses Universitaires de Louvain). Commissaire de l'exposition au Musée L. Sujets traités : Etudiant, note, cours, Cornelius van Wijckersloot, Arnoldus Mennekens, Nicolas Du Bois Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Les journalistes et experts de RFI répondent également à vos questions sur la menace de destructions de contraceptifs destinés à l'Afrique par les États-Unis, sur les sanctions adoptées par l'Espagne contre Israël, et sur la nouvelle rémunération record offerte par Tesla à son PDG Elon Musk. France : Sébastien Lecornu nommé Premier Ministre  On a appris hier soir que Sébastien Lecornu a été nommé premier ministre. Il est issu du camp présidentiel, ne risque-t-il pas le même sort que François Bayrou ? Comment expliquer que Macron n'ait toujours pas voulu essayer de nommer un premier ministre de gauche ? En 3 ans et demi, la France aura connu 5 premiers ministres. Le modèle de la 5eme République semble ne plus fonctionner. LFI appelait à une 6ème république. D'autres partis pourraient eux aussi proposer un changement de régime ?  Avec Victorien Willaume, journaliste au service France de RFI.   États-Unis : controverse autour de la destruction de contraceptifs   La presse américaine a révélé que plus de 10 millions de dollars de contraceptifs destinés à l'Afrique et stockés en Belgique et en France pourraient être détruis par l'administration Trump. Pourquoi les Etats-Unis veulent détruire ce stock ? Si les Etats-Unis acceptent de ne pas les détruire, qui se chargera d'acheminer et de distribuer ces contraceptifs ?  Avec Sarah Durocher, présidente du Planning familial.   Espagne : Pedro Sanchez accentue la pression sur Israël L'Espagne durcit ses sanctions contre Israël, en imposant un embargo sur les armes et des interdictions économiques. Ces mesures peuvent-elles avoir réel un impact sur l'économie israélienne ? D'autres pays européens pourraient-ils suivre l'exemple espagnol, afin d'accentuer la pression sur Netanyahu ? Quelle est la position de l'UE concernant les sanctions économiques ?   Avec Elena Aoun, professeure et chercheuse en relations internationales à l'Université catholique de Louvain. Elon Musk : nouvelle rémunération record pour l'homme le plus riche du monde  Tesla a proposé à son PDG Elon Musk une nouvelle rémunération de plus de 1 000 milliards de dollars.  Pourquoi Tesla est-elle prête à dépenser autant pour son PDG ? Même si Musk arrive à lever plus de fonds pour son entreprise, Tesla pourra-t-elle concurrencer les voitures électriques chinoises ?    Avec Emmanuel Botta, rédacteur en chef en charge de la Stratégie numérique à Challenges. Co-auteur de l'ouvrage Elon Musk : l'enquête inédite paru chez Robert Laffont.

Ils sont détenus en Iran depuis plus de 1 200 jours, soit plus de trois ans : Cécile Kohler et son compagnon, Jacques Paris. Deux ressortissants français, arrêtés en mai 2022, au dernier jour d'un voyage touristique, et accusés d'espionnage pour le compte de l'État israélien. Détenus dans la prison d'Evin, à Téhéran, ils risquent la peine de mort. C'est sans doute, actuellement, l'un des cas les plus emblématiques de la stratégie de l'Iran : détenir des ressortissants étrangers pour faire pression sur certains gouvernements. Une diplomatie des otages pratiquée depuis des dizaines d'années par Téhéran… mais aussi, désormais, par d'autres États, comme le Venezuela. Alors comment cette stratégie s'est-elle construite ? Est-elle efficace ? Que peuvent faire les pays qui en sont victimes ? Invités :  Gilles Ferragu, maître de conférences en histoire contemporaine à l'université de Nanterre. Auteur du livre Otages, une histoire (Gallimard) Raoul Delcorde, ambassadeur honoraire de Belgique (ancien ambassadeur de Belgique en Suède, Pologne, Canada), professeur invité à l'Université catholique de Louvain, auteur de plusieurs ouvrages sur la diplomatie Clément Therme, chargé de cours à l'université Paul-Valéry de Montpellier, auteur de Téhéran – Washington 1979-2025 (Hémisphères), et de l'ouvrage Idées reçues sur l'Iran. Un pouvoir à bout de souffle ? (Le cavalier bleu) À lire aussiVenezuela: l'inquiétude monte pour un Français détenu «sans motif» depuis près de deux mois

Depuis la Renaissance, l'Antiquité classique, gréco-romaine, a fait figure de modèle de la modernité pour ses influences culturelles et politiques. Depuis quelque temps, cette exemplarité est remise en question, et est souvent pointée du doigt comme étant la justification d'une culture de domination. Esclavagisme, misogynie, ethnocentrisme: aa culture classique, et les études classiques ont-elles mauvaise presse? Spécialiste de la réception de l'Antiquité grecque à la Renaissance et professeure émérite à l'Université Catholique de Louvain, Monique Mund-Dopchie (MMD) propose une démonstration critique des limites du modèle de filiation à la culture classique qui nourrit les sociétés occidentales. Elle nous invite à changer notre regard sur cet héritage, en laissant parler d'eux même les auteurs et les vestiges d'une société classique qui redeviennent alors étonnants et stimulants. Sujets traités : Renaissance, Antiquité, gréco-romaine, modernité, culture, Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Lʹappartement-atelier de Le Corbusier, conçu à Paris entre 1931 et 1934, est le premier immeuble dʹhabitation de verre de lʹhistoire de lʹarchitecture. A lʹoccasion des 60 ans de la disparition de Le Corbusier, Monumental sʹintéresse à lʹimmeuble Molitor avec Giulia Marino, architecte, professeure à lʹUniversité catholique de Louvain ainsi quʹà lʹEPFL et Franz Graf, architecte et professeur à lʹEPFL.

Il y a vingt ans, l'ouragan Katrina touchait terre et s'apprêtait à ravager la Nouvelle-Orléans aux États-Unis, provoquant la mort de plus de 1 800 personnes et causant des dégâts considérables. Vingt ans après, qu'est-ce qui a changé dans la préparation aux catastrophes climatiques ? Les évènements extrêmes se multiplient, l'été l'a à nouveau démontré avec des canicules record et des incendies intenses. Les prochaines crises climatiques sont-elles inéluctables ? Quelles sont les priorités pour mieux y faire face ? Pour en débattre :  François Gemenne, spécialiste de la gouvernance du climat et des migrations, directeur de l'Observatoire Hugo à l'université de Liège, professeur à HEC Paris et co-auteur du 6e rapport du Giec Maud Lelièvre, spécialiste des questions de transition écologique, auteure du livre Faire face à la canicule : adapter les villes aux enjeux climatiques (Éditions Desclée de Brouwer, mai 2024) et co-auteure du rapport L'habitat et le logement face aux défis sociaux, territoriaux et écologiques Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, climatologue, professeur à l'Université catholique de Louvain et ancien vice-président du Giec À lire aussiVingt ans après Katrina, Donald Trump rend les États-Unis «moins préparés qu'en 2005» aux ouragans

Il y a vingt ans, l'ouragan Katrina touchait terre et s'apprêtait à ravager la Nouvelle-Orléans aux États-Unis, provoquant la mort de plus de 1 800 personnes et causant des dégâts considérables. Vingt ans après, qu'est-ce qui a changé dans la préparation aux catastrophes climatiques ? Les évènements extrêmes se multiplient, l'été l'a à nouveau démontré avec des canicules record et des incendies intenses. Les prochaines crises climatiques sont-elles inéluctables ? Quelles sont les priorités pour mieux y faire face ? Pour en débattre :  François Gemenne, spécialiste de la gouvernance du climat et des migrations, directeur de l'Observatoire Hugo à l'université de Liège, professeur à HEC Paris et co-auteur du 6e rapport du Giec Maud Lelièvre, spécialiste des questions de transition écologique, auteure du livre Faire face à la canicule : adapter les villes aux enjeux climatiques (Éditions Desclée de Brouwer, mai 2024) et co-auteure du rapport L'habitat et le logement face aux défis sociaux, territoriaux et écologiques Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, climatologue, professeur à l'Université catholique de Louvain et ancien vice-président du Giec À lire aussiVingt ans après Katrina, Donald Trump rend les États-Unis «moins préparés qu'en 2005» aux ouragans

Répondez au sondage de l'été 2025 des auditeurs et auditrices de Passion Médiévistes (et n'hésitez pas à le partager) https://forms.gle/K7GYsDFa7pxwXNt86 A quoi servaient les rouleaux mortuaires au Moyen Âge ? Au micro de cet épisode de Passion Médiévistes, nous recevons Éléonore Venturelli qui prépare sa thèse intitulée : “La pratique des rouleaux mortuaires. Une écriture collective de la mémoire (VIIIᵉ s.-première moitié du XIIIᵉ s.)”. Elle réalise ses recherches sous la direction de Cécile Treffort et de Paul Bertrand, à l'Université de Poitiers en co-tutelle avec l'Université de Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgique). Notre invitée a pour objectif de comprendre les rouleaux mortuaires et les personnes à l'origine de cette production : elle souhaite montrer tout le processus intellectuel et matériel de la construction des manuscrits si instructifs sur le Moyen Âge. ▪ Infos sur le podcast Créé et produit par Fanny Cohen Moreau depuis 2017. ➡ Plus d'infos sur cet épisode > passionmedievistes.fr/ep-109-eleonore-rouleaux-mortuaires ➡ Soutenir le podcast > passionmedievistes.fr/soutenir/ ➡ Instagram > instagram.com/passionmedievistes/ ➡ Facebook > facebook.com/PassionMedievistes ➡ BlueSky > bsky.app/profile/passionmedievistes.bsky.social ➡ Youtube > www.youtube.com/@passionmedievistespodcast Préparation, enregistrement et mixage : Fanny Cohen Moreau Montage : Baptiste Mossiere Générique : Moustaclem / Clément Nouguier Illustration : Garance Petit Si vous avez lu jusqu'à la fin de cette description, dites moi par le moyen de communication que vous préférez si vous avez répondu au sondage de l'été 2025 !

REDIFFUSION. Cet été, Faites des gosses prend des vacances et vous propose de (re)découvrir certains de nos épisodes favoris. Bonne écoute !Vous avez beau tout essayer pour détourner son attention, votre enfant se rue dans le rayon “sucrerie” et exige l'équivalent de son poids en bonbons crocodiles. Face à votre refus, il se met soudainement à hurler en se roulant sur le sol du supermarché. Les regards se tournent, la pression monte. Pourquoi ces crises surviennent-elles, et comment y faire face sans perdre votre calme ? Pour comprendre les raisons de la désobéissance des enfants, Marine Revol interroge Isabelle Roskam, docteure en Sciences Psychologiques et professeure en psychologie du développement à l'Université de Louvain en Belgique. Et pour elle, ce n'est pas qu'une question d'éducation. Ensemble, elles parlent de tempérament et de maturation cérébrale, de dynamiques familiales et culturelles, d'escalade de conflit, de routine, de chantage, de priorisation et de sit-in non violents.Pour aller plus loin :- Mon enfant est insupportable, Comprendre et accompagner les enfants difficiles d'Isabelle Roskam aux éditions Mardaga- Le burn-out parental. Comprendre, diagnostiquer et prendre en charge, d'Isabelle Roskam et Moïra Mikolajczak aux éditions De Boeck Supérieur- L'épisode de Faites des Gosses “Faut-il apprendre à son enfant à désobéir ?”Faites des gosses est une production Louie Media, présentée par Marine Revol. Elle a écrit et tourné cet épisode. Il a été monté par Myriam Mernissi et réalisé par Anna Buy. La musique est de Jean Thévenin. La prise de son et le mix sont du studio La Fugitive. Elsa Berthault est en charge de la production.Envoyez-nous vos questions, vos remarques et vos notes vocales à hello@louiemedia.com ou racontez nous votre histoire en remplissant ce formulaire.Vous souhaitez soutenir la création et la diffusion des projets de Louie Media ? Vous pouvez le faire via le Club Louie. Chaque participation est précieuse. Nous vous proposons un soutien sans engagement, annulable à tout moment, soit en une seule fois, soit de manière régulière. Au nom de toute l'équipe de Louie : MERCI !Pour avoir des news de Louie, des recos podcasts et culturelles, abonnez-vous à notre newsletter en cliquant ici. Et suivez Louie Media sur Instagram, Facebook, Twitter. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Cap sur une légende bien vivante : celle du Meyboom. Chaque 9 août, Bruxelles doit planter un arbre avant 17h. Si l'arbre n'est pas en terre à temps, la victoire symbolique revient à Louvain. Une rivalité folklorique qui remonte au Moyen Âge, et qui continue de faire vibrer les deux villes. Dans sa nouvelle Un pays gigantesque, Nathalie Stalmans explore les origines de cette fête, à travers les yeux d'une géante qui déambule au cœur du cortège. Une géante qui incarne mémoire et transmission. On plonge dans les racines bruxelloises du Meyboom et des géants. Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Nous sommes en 1590, en Castille, au palais-monastère de Saint-Laurent de l'Escurial, résidence du roi Philippe II, à quelques kilomètres de Madrid. C'est cette année-là que commence la réalisation d'une fresque représentant la première batailles de Gravelines. Celle qui eut lieu en 1558, dans l'imposante ville du nord de la France, et qui vit la victoire de l'armée espagnole, commandée par le comte d'Egmont, sur l'armée française du maréchal de Thermes. Une fois la fresque achevée, un an plus tard, on voit nettement se détacher, au premier plan, à l'écart du champ de bataille principal, un homme dont le costume tranche avec les armures des chevaliers. Il marche seul, une épée au côté gauche et un chapeau à plume blanche vissé sur la tête. Il tient, dans la main droite, une dépêche. Ce personnage est, en réalité, un courrier, fonction essentielle à la circulation de l'information militaire et politique. Il est l'un des maillon essentiel de l'administration sous l'ancien régime. Cette administration qui est aussi l'expression et le lieu de transmission du pouvoir royal. Transmission qui passe par la figure du ministre. Alors en quoi, ce ministre est-il ce que l'on peut appeler le « troisième corps du roi « ? Quels sont les deux autres corps ? Quelles est la puissance de l'écrit et de l'image dans la communication politique et diplomatique aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles ? Jérémie Ferrer-Bartomeu, chargé de recherche du FRS-FRNS à l'Université de Liège et à l'Université catholique de Louvain. Article « La figure du ministre ou le troisième corps du roi » in « La part de l'œil », numéro 39, 2025. + « L'Etat à la lettre – Ecrit politique et société administrative en France au temps des guerres de religion » ; éd. Champ Vallon. Sujets traités : Philippe II, Gravelines, Richelieu, Ministre, Roi, politique, transmission Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.