Podcasts about louvain

Lundi 20 Octobre 2025Forger le faux. Les usages de l'écrit au Moyen Âge Seuil – Paul BERTRANDHISTOIRESi les concepts de fake news et post-vérité semblent définir notre monde contemporain, le Moyen Âge n'était-il pas déjà l'empire du faux ? De la fausse donation de Constantin aux évangiles apocryphes, des fausses reliques aux faux monnayeurs, des milliers de fausses chartes aux comptabilités trafiquées, pourquoi la tromperie semble-t-elle régner à cette époque ?Professeur en histoire médiévale à l'Université catholique de Louvain, Paul Bertrand s'intéresse aux cultures graphiques et textuelles médiévales. Il a notamment publié Les Écritures ordinaires. Sociologie d'un temps de révolution documentaireentre royaume de France et empire, 1250-1350(Publications de la Sorbonne, 2015).

Ce 25 novembre marque la Journée internationale pour l'élimination des violences à l'égard des femmes. Une date pour rappeler que la prévention commence tôt, dans les familles, dans les écoles, dans les quartiers. En Belgique, plusieurs initiatives s'inscrivent déjà dans cette dynamique, dont l'ASBL Educonsent, qui travaille à installer la culture du consentement dès le plus jeune âge.Educonsent anime des ateliers dans les écoles, les maisons de jeunes ou encore les mouvements de jeunesse. Pas de cours magistral : ce sont des jeux, des mises en situation ou des petits débats. Avec les 3–12 ans, on parle d'intimité, de bulle personnelle, de la possibilité de dire non. Chez les ados, on aborde aussi le sexisme ordinaire, le cadre juridique, les premières relations affectives. L'objectif est clair : éduquer aujourd'hui pour prévenir les violences demain. L'association propose également des formations pour les adultes qui entourent les jeunes — enseignants, animateurs, encadrants — afin qu'ils puissent aborder ces sujets sans malaise.La prévention passe aussi par le monde du travail. En Belgique, une vingtaine d'entreprises font partie du réseau CEASE — Companies Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. Elles s'engagent à former et sensibiliser leurs collaborateurs pour repérer les signaux, accueillir la parole et orienter les victimes. Car pour certaines femmes, l'entreprise est le seul espace extérieur qu'elles fréquentent. Selon une étude de l'IEFH (2017), 73 % des victimes affirment que les violences subies à la maison impactent leur travail ; 41 % doivent s'absenter. Le lieu de travail peut donc devenir un refuge, un point d'appui, un premier pas vers la protection.Enfin, une initiative très concrète se développe dans nos villes : les marches exploratoires. Elles permettent aux habitantes de repérer les lieux où elles ne se sentent pas en sécurité et de formuler des recommandations très simples : plus d'éclairage, une rue trop isolée, un passage étroit… Ce jeudi 27 novembre, une marche exploratoire aura lieu à Louvain-la-Neuve, destinée en priorité aux jeunes femmes de 15 à 25 ans. L'idée est que les citoyennes deviennent actrices de l'aménagement urbain, que les autorités s'emparent de leurs constats pour créer une ville pensée par, pour et avec les femmes.Parce que prévenir les violences, c'est aussi transformer nos environnements, nos réflexes… et nos conversations.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 connaitre 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

Sau những « bong bóng » tin học, internet hay địa ốc, giờ đây đến lượt bong bóng AI đe dọa lại đẩy thế giới vào một cuộc khủng hoảng tài chính. Nhiều ngân hàng lớn từ đầu tháng 10/2025 liên tục báo động trước một kịch bản tai hại khi mà nhiều tập đoàn trong lĩnh vực trí tuệ nhân tạo dù thua lỗ bạc tỷ nhưng vẫn thu hút đầu tư, cổ phiếu trên các sàn chứng khoán vẫn được trao đổi với những cái giá « trên trời ». Những lo ngại đó bắt nguồn từ đâu, căn cứ trên những cơ sở nào, hiện tượng « vết dầu loang » lần này tai hại đến đâu và liệu đã quá trễ để ngăn chận kịch bản tệ hại nhất ? Lạc quan thái quá Hôm 18/11/2025 chủ tịch tổng giám đốc tập đoàn Google, Sundar Pichai, người đang đầu tư đến 90 tỷ đô la từ đầu năm 2025 để phát triển AI nhìn nhận một cơn sốt công nghệ trí tuệ nhân tạo và ông lo rằng, nếu xảy ra khủng hoảng, không một tập đoàn nào trên thế giới tránh khỏi.  «  Đúng là khi chúng ta đang ở trong một chu kỳ mà, một cách tập thể, tất cả các nhà đầu tư đang vượt quá đà. Trong trường hợp cụ thể, công nghệ internet quả thực là hiện đang có quá nhiều vốn đầu tư vào lĩnh vực này. Đương nhiên là không một ai nghi ngờ về tầm mức quan trọng, cũng như tác động của lĩnh vực này trong đời sống của mỗi chúng ta. Internet đã thay đổi hoàn toàn nếp sống và cách chúng ta làm việc trong một thế giới digital. Tôi nghĩ rằng công nghệ AI cũng sẽ như vậy thôi … Vỡ bong bóng AI là điều khó tránh khỏi … Như những con thiêu thân, các nhà đầu tư trên thế giới, kể cả tập đoàn Sundar Pichai đang điều hành, « điên cuồng » thổi nên bong bóng AI :  « Mới chỉ cách nay 4 năm Google đầu tư chưa tới 30 tỷ đô la hàng năm để phát triển công nghệ trí tuệ nhân tạo. Nhưng năm nay thì khoản đầu tư này đã vượt ngưỡng 90 tỷ đô la. Nếu như chúng ta cộng lại tất cả đầu tư từ các doanh nghiệp vào AI thì tổng số vốn lên tới hơn 1.000 tỷ chỉ để phát triển cơ sở hạ tầng cần thiết trong lĩnh vực này ». Theo báo cáo hàng tháng của ngân hàng Bank of America công bố hôm 14/10/2025 nguy hiểm lớn nhất trong mắt các nhà đầu tư trên thế giới giờ đây là kịch bản vỡ bóng AI. Mối lo ngại này lấn át cả những mối bận tâm về lạm phát tại Hoa Kỳ, trước cả những nghi vấn về chính sách tiền tệ của Cục Dự Trữ Liên Bang, hay những mối đau đầu vì chính sách thuế quan chính quyền Trump ban hành gây trở ngại cho giao thương quốc tế. Ngày 08/10/2025 là một « bước ngoặt » trong trên các sàn chứng khoán khi mà cổ phiếu các tập đoàn công nghệ kỹ thuật số, đặc biệt là chỉ số Nasdaq tại Wall Street bắt đầu mất giá sau 6 tháng liên tiếp « tăng trưởng theo chiều thẳng đứng ». Lý do ngân hàng Goldman Sachs công bố một báo cáo với nghi nhận sức mạnh tài chính trên thế giới hiện đang tập trung cả vào « 10 doanh nghiệp lớn nhất của Mỹ », chiếm gần một phần tư toàn bộ thị trường cổ phiếu, và đây là một « mức độ tập trung » mà ngân hàng này đánh giá không lành mạnh. Chỉ nội Nvidia, trung tâm bàn cơ công nghệ kỹ thuật số và AI có trị giá chứng khoán hơn 5.000 tỷ đô la, lớn hơn cả GDP của Đức, một trong 5 nền kinh tế hàng đầu thế giới. Liền sau đó đến lượt Ngân hàng Anh, từ Luân Đôn cũng đưa ra một cảnh báo tương tự và dự báo « một đợt điều chỉnh ở quy mô lớn ảnh hưởng đến các thị trường tài chính toàn cầu » Hiện tượng đầu tư  « điên cuồng » vào AI Cả hai báo cáo của nói trên khơi lại các kịch bản « vỡ bong bóng » tin học, internet, địa ốc trước đây. Tình hình có vẻ xấu đi thêm. Trả lời đài phát thanh Bỉ RTBF chuyên gia về tài chính và cũng là một cổ động mua bán chứng khoán Grégory Guilmin ghi nhận : « Quả thực là trong những ngày qua, chứng khoán giảm mạnh, giảm hơn 5 %. Thị trường bị dao động nhiều hơn chủ yếu do lo ngại vỡ bong bóng công nghệ trí tạo thông minh (...) Nhìn lại 30-40 năm vừa qua, từng xảy ra nhiều khủng hoảng do vỡ bong bóng tài chính. Đôi khi tác động rất là mạnh -như vụ vỡ bong bóng tin học hồi năm 2000, nhưng cũng có khi hậu quả không nghiêm trọng lắm. Thành thử nếu chúng ta đầu tư vào nhiều lĩnh vực khác nhau thì không lo bị thua lỗ và có thể là sẽ vượt qua được khó khăn này thôi ». Vẫn trên đài phát thanh Bỉ, Benoit Gailly giảng dậy tại đại học Louvain nói đến một sự tin tưởng và những kỳ vọng quá đáng từ phía các nhà đầu tư vào thông minh nhân tạo : « Thông thường, trong ngắn hạn mọi người có khuynh hướng lạc quan quá trớn về những phát minh công nghệ mang lại. Người ta cứ nghĩ rằng chỉ cần có công nghệ là mọi thứ có thể thay đổi trong một sớm một chiều. Trong quá khứ, điều này đã được kiểm chứng khi con người phát minh ra xe hơi, cũng như từ khi chúng ta có internet, hay dùng những công nghệ mới … và ai cũng nghĩ rằng, thông minh nhân tạo cũng sẽ, chỉ trong chớp mắt, sẽ đem lại một cuộc cách mạng rất lớn. Chính vì thế mà các nhà đầu tư hồ hởi quá đáng, mạnh dạn đổ tiền vào công nghệ AI. Tất cả chúng ta đều đang quá lạc quan ». « Không một ai được lành lặn » Các tập đoàn lớn trong thế giới digital của Mỹ đều đua nhau cho ra đời những công cụ « thông minh nhân tạo của riêng mình, mà điển hình là Grok, hay xAI. Theo thống kê của cơ quan tư vấn Gartner trong năm 2025 thế giới « rót » từ 1.000 tỷ đến 1.500 tỷ đô la tiền vốn vào các công ty trong lĩnh vực AI. Bốn tên tuổi hàng đầu trên thế giới là Google, Meta, Amazon và Microsoft đã chi ra 350 tỷ đô la từ đầu năm đến nay để phát triển các cơ sở hạ tầng để « thông minh nhân tạo » nảy sinh. Số tiền khổng lồ này được dùng vào các khâu từ mua chip điện tử -của TSCM, hay Nvidia..., xây dựng cac trung tâm xử lý dữ liệu data center. Khoản đầu tư cho lĩnh vực này còn được tăng thêm nữa trong hai năm sắp tới … Cũng chính sự hồ hởi « thái quá » này bắt đầu khiến các nhà tài chính trên thế giới mà đứng đầu là những người trong cuộc lo âu. Tiêu biểu nhất là chủ tịch tổng giám đốc tập đoàn Google. Sundar Pichai đã nhìn nhận « thế giới thực sự điên đảo » tin tưởng quá độ vào AI. Peter Thiel, một nhà đầu tư danh tiếng khác trong thung lũng Silicon, quý ba vừa qua đã đột ngột bán hết cổ phiếu Nvidia ông đang nắm giữ. Quỹ đầu tư Nhật Bản SoftBank cũng đã quyết định tương tự. Tại Frankfurt, phó thống đốc Ngân Hàng Trung Ương Châu Âu Luisi de Guindos báo động : quyền lực tài chính tập trung quá lớn trong tay « một vài tập đoàn công nghệ Mỹ là một rủi ro ». Lỗ vốn mà vẫn có uy tín với cổ đông Chỉ sau 3 năm xuất hiện trên thị trường công trí tuệ nhân tạo giờ đây đã thu hút hơn 1 tỷ người sử dụng, trở thành bạn đồng hành « không thể thiếu của từ 500-600 triệu dân » trên toàn cầu. Riêng tập đoàn OpenAI theo các thống kê chính thức của hãng Sam Altman điều hành, « mỗi tuần có 500 triệu dân trên thế giới tham khảo ChatGPT », tương đương với 25 % dân số trên hành tinh. Dù vậy tập đoàn hàng trăm tỷ này vẫn trong tình trạng thua lỗ. Chỉ riêng quý 3/2025 OpenAI lỗ 12 tỷ đô la. Điều đó không cấm cản, cổ phiếu của tập đoàn vẫn tăng giá đều đặn. Trị giá chứng khoán của OpenAI tăng nhanh vì mọi người tin chắc là nhân loại sẽ phụ thuộc ngày càng nhiều vào trí tuệ nhân tạo tạo sinh. Bên cạnh những tên tuổi lớn trong ngành, như Open AI hay Nvidia thường được báo chí nhắc đến còn phải kể đến « cả một khu rừng với rất nhiều các công ty khởi nghiệp star-up » cũng trong lĩnh vực AI … Thí dụ như tỷ phú Elon Musk không chỉ đầu tư vào ô tô điện hay hệ thống vệ tinh mà còn đang dốc nhiều sức lực và phương tiện tài chính cho xAI. Theo báo Wall Street Journal, công ty nhỏ này của Elon Musk đang đàm phán huy động 15 tỷ đô la vốn đầu tư, căn cứ trên giá trị của tập đoàn được thẩm định lên tới 230 tỷ đô la. Mối quan hệ « cận huyết » Về câu hỏi nếu vỡ bong bóng AI khủng hoảng lần này nghiêm trọng đến mức độ nào và bong bóng « trí tuệ nhân tạo » này có khác gì so với những bong bóng địa ốc hay tin học trước đây, giới trong ngành trả lời như sau : thứ nhất viễn cảnh vỡ bong bóng là điều khó tránh khỏi, nghi vấn duy nhất chỉ là vấn đề thời gian. Điểm thứ hai cơn sốt AI đang tấy lên một phần do « các chương trình đầu tư được thực hiện trong một vòng luẩn quẩn và rất khép kín » xoay quanh trên dưới 10 đại tập đoàn. Họ là những đối tác, những khách hàng, những nhà cung cấp thiết bị, hay dịch vụ của lẫn nhau. Chỉ cần một trong số những mắt xích này bị nạn là kéo theo hiện tượng đổ dàn. Thí dụ như tháng 9/2025 Nvidia thông báo đầu tư 100 tỷ đô la và số tiền này được rót cho OpenAI và đế chế của Jensen Huang chờ đợi lãi gấp 3 lần số vốn bỏ ra ban đầu ! Chính mối quan hệ mà giới trong ngành gọi là « cận huyết đó » vừa là đòn bẩy, vừa là mầm mống khủng hoảng trong lĩnh vực AI : Chỉ cần 1 trong số các tập đoàn thuộc nhóm Big Tech của Mỹ bị nạn là cũng đủ kéo cả nhóm vào một vòng xoáy không hồi kết.

Au programme de cette Actu Région :  Les élèves du Lycée Martin V de Louvain-la-Neuve reçoivent un bulletin vide. Le point sur les chantiers aux Palais de Justice de Nivelles. Victoire belge et au goût brabançon dans une compétition internationale d'escrime.

durée : 00:58:39 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit, Maïwenn Guiziou, Jeanne Delecroix - Au Moyen Âge, modifier des écrits officiels pour qu'ils concordent à la réalité, c'est le B-A, BA. Tout bascule à la fin du 12ᵉ siècle, lorsque l'écriture de faux documents devient un crime. Les faussaires ont dorénavant faux sur toute la ligne… - réalisation : Thomas Beau, Cassandre Puel - invités : Paul Bertrand Professeur en histoire médiévale à l'Université catholique de Louvain; Solène Girard Restauratrice d'arts graphiques, spécialiste du papyrus, doctorante en conservation-restauration

Dr. Carole Lieberman is a board-certified Beverly Hills psychiatrist, author, and media personality who specializes in forensic psychiatry and media psychiatry.    Education and training M.D.: She received her medical degree from the Université Catholique de Louvain in 1975. M.P.H.: She earned a Master's of Public Health from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Residency: Lieberman was Chief Resident in Psychiatry at NYU-Bellevue. Clinical Faculty: She has been a member of the clinical faculty in UCLA's Department of Psychiatry for many years. Other Training: She studied at the Anna Freud Hampstead Clinic and the Institute of Psychiatry/Maudsley Hospital in London.    Career and notable work Forensic Psychiatrist: With over 20 years of experience, she works as a forensic psychiatrist and expert witness on hundreds of civil and criminal cases nationwide, including high-profile cases like the Jenny Jones Talk Show murder trial and celebrity divorces. Media Personality: An Emmy-honored media personality, Lieberman frequently provides psychiatric expertise on news and talk shows such as Oprah and the Today Show, and hosts a radio show and podcast. Author: She is an award-winning author of several books, including Bad Boys, Bad Girls, and Lions and Tigers and Terrorists, Oh My!. Activism: She has testified before Congress multiple times to advocate for mental health awareness in the media. Hollywood Consultant: She has worked as a psychiatric script consultant for soap operas like The Young and the Restless.    Controversies Analyzing Public Figures: Dr. Lieberman has faced criticism for providing analyses of public figures she has not personally met, which goes against the American Psychiatric Association's "Goldwater Rule". Criticism from UCLA: An article in Shockya raised questions about the use of psychiatric evaluations by UCLA-trained psychiatrists, including Lieberman, to potentially discredit individuals who challenge established interests. Video Game Controversy: In 2011, she suggested that video games contribute to aggression and sexual assault.      SOCIAL MEDIA EXPLOITATION – HOW IT WORKS Social media platforms exploit and manipulate psychological mechanisms to drive excessive engagement, often at the expense of users' mental well-being. While Dr. Carole Lieberman has not specified a distinct list of mechanisms, her public stance as a "Media Psychiatrist" aligns with a recognized set of issues identified by mental health professionals, researchers, and tech critics.  Key psychological mechanisms that make social media platforms harmful include: The variable reward system Social media platforms use an intermittent, variable reward schedule similar to that of a slot machine.  The dopamine hit: Each notification, "like," or share is a potential reward that triggers a release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter in the brain's reward pathway. The unpredictability factor: Since users don't know when they will receive a reward, they are incentivized to keep scrolling and checking for updates. The unpredictability of the reward makes the platforms highly addictive.  Social comparison and curated reality Social media platforms present a distorted view of others' lives, leading to a constant and often unhealthy process of comparison.  The "highlight reel": Users primarily post curated, idealized versions of their lives, showcasing achievements, vacations, and happy moments. Feelings of inadequacy: When a user's unfiltered reality is constantly compared to the polished "highlight reel" of others, it can create feelings of low self-esteem, envy, and inadequacy. Filters and altered self-perception: The pervasive use of filters on images and videos further promotes unrealistic beauty standards, which can lead to body dissatisfaction and a disconnect from one's authentic self.  Fear of missing out (FOMO) Platforms capitalize on the fundamental human need for connection by creating a fear of exclusion.  Anxiety and compulsion: Notifications and feeds highlighting the activities of friends and acquaintances can trigger the fear of missing out on social events or experiences. This anxiety can drive compulsive checking and over-engagement. Displacement of real-life interactions: The desire to stay "in the loop" online can cause users to prioritize virtual engagement over genuine, in-person social interactions, leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation.  Design features that drive compulsive use Social media platforms are deliberately engineered with features that make it hard to stop scrolling, even when a user intends to log off.  Infinite scroll: This feature eliminates stopping points, allowing users to consume an endless stream of content without having to make a conscious decision to start a new page. Autoplay: Platforms like YouTube and TikTok automatically play the next video in a queue, seamlessly prolonging a user's session without requiring any action. Personalized algorithms: Artificial intelligence (AI) is used to constantly learn a user's preferences, ensuring that the content delivered is as engaging and attention-grabbing as possible.  Targeting of adolescents Social media companies disproportionately impact younger users, whose brains are still in a sensitive period of development.  Vulnerability to reward systems: Developing brains are particularly sensitive to social rewards, which makes young people more susceptible to the variable reward systems of social media. Impact on developing brains: Excessive social media use has been linked to changes in the parts of the adolescent brain related to emotional learning, impulse control, and regulation. This can lead to increased emotional sensitivity and compromised decision-making.  This is for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional. AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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).

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 - 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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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 !

Considéré comme l'un des créateurs les plus importants du XXe siècle, Jean Prouvé est à la fois un entrepreneur, un chercheur, un designer, un ingénieur ainsi quʹun architecte. Pour parler de son parcours, Johanne Dussez accueille Giulia Marino architecte, professeure à lʹEPFL et à lʹUniversité catholique de Louvain.

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.

Depuis le vendredi 13 juin et l'offensive initiale d'Israël contre l'Iran, les deux pays échangent les frappes.Les attaques israéliennes ont visé des centaines de sites militaires et nucléaires, afin d'empêcher l'Iran de se doter de la bombe atomique.Elles ont déclenché un conflit sans précédent…Au moment de l'enregistrement de ce podcast mardi 17 juin, au cinquième jour de l'escalade, le bilan était de 224 morts en Iran et de 24 morts côté israélien, selon des sources officielles.Le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu a affirmé vouloir changer "la face du Moyen-Orient". De son côté, Téhéran a promis de bombarder Israël "aussi longtemps qu'il le faudra" pour mettre fin à l'attaque israélienne.Israël peut-il atteindre ces buts de guerre ? Quels sont les risques à l'échelle mondiale ? Une désescalade est-elle possible ?Réalisation : Maxime MametInvités : Kevan Gafaïti, enseignant à Sciences Po Paris et chercheur au Centre Thucydide de l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas; Thomas Juneau, professeur à l'Ecole supérieure d'affaires publiques et internationales de l'Université d'Ottawa; Jérémy Dieudonné, chercheur en relations internationales à l'Université catholique de Louvain.Sur le Fil est le podcast quotidien de l'AFP. Vous avez des commentaires ? Ecrivez-nous à podcast@afp.com. Vous pouvez aussi nous envoyer une note vocale par Whatsapp au + 33 6 79 77 38 45. Si vous aimez, abonnez-vous, parlez de nous autour de vous et laissez-nous plein d'étoiles sur votre plateforme de podcasts préférée pour mieux faire connaître notre programme. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

As one of the most illustrious rock stars of the sustainability movement, Tim Jackson suggests that we must “f**k the patriarchy” to get beyond capitalism. In his new book, The Care Economy, Jackson argues that our growth-obsessed capitalist economic system is fundamentally dysfunctional, prioritizing wealth accumulation over health and wellbeing. He advocates replacing GDP-focused metrics with care-based economics that emphasizes balance and restoration rather than endless expansion. Jackson critiques how Big Food and Big Pharma profit from making people sick then selling expensive treatments, creating a "false economy." Drawing a dotted line from Bobby Kennedy to RFK Jr., he sees health as the unifying political issue that will enable us to bridge traditional divides. five key takeaways 1. Redefine Prosperity as Health, Not Wealth True prosperity should be measured by health (physical, psychological, and community wellbeing) rather than GDP growth. Jackson argues that endless accumulation undermines the balance necessary for genuine human flourishing.2. The Food-Pharma Industrial Complex is a "False Economy" Big Food creates addictive, unhealthy products that cause chronic disease, then Big Pharma profits from treating symptoms rather than causes. This cycle generates GDP growth while systematically undermining public health.3. Care Work is the Foundation of All Economic Activity The predominantly female-performed labor of caring for children, elderly, and sick people is invisible to traditional economics but essential for society's functioning. This unpaid work must be recognized and valued.4. Individual Solutions Can't Fix Systemic Problems While people can make personal health choices, expecting individuals to overcome an engineered food environment designed to exploit human psychology is unrealistic. Systemic change is required.5. Health Could Unite Across Political Divides Unlike abstract environmental concerns, health is universally relatable and could serve as a rallying point for economic reform that appeals to both working-class and affluent communities.Tim Jackson is an ecological economist and writer. Since 2016 he has been Director of the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP). CUSP is a multidisciplinary research centre which aims to understand the economic, social and political dimensions of sustainable prosperity. Its guiding vision for prosperity is one in which people everywhere have the capability to flourish as human beings—within the ecological and resource constraints of a finite planet. Tim has been at the forefront of international debates on sustainability for three decades and has worked closely with the UK Government, the United Nations, the European Commission, numerous NGOs, private companies and foundations to bring economic and social science research into sustainability. During five years at the Stockholm Environment Institute in the early 1990s, he pioneered the concept of preventative environmental management—a core principle of the circular economy—outlined in his 1996 book Material Concerns: Pollution Profit and Quality of life. From 2004 to 2011 he was Economics Commissioner for the UK Sustainable Development Commission where his work culminated in the publication of his controversial and ground-breaking book Prosperity without Growth (2009/2017) which has subsequently been translated into twenty foreign languages. It was named as a Financial Times ‘book of the year' in 2010 and UnHerd's economics book of the decade in 2019. In 2016, Tim was awarded the Hillary Laureate for exceptional international leadership in sustainability. His book Post Growth—life after capitalism (Polity Press, 2021) won the 2022 Eric Zencey Prize for Economics. His latest book The Care Economy was published in April 2025. Tim holds degrees in mathematics (MA, Cambridge), philosophy (MA, Uni Western Ontario) and physics (PhD, St Andrews). He also holds honorary degrees at the University of Brighton in the UK and the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts, the Academy of Social Sciences and the Belgian Royal Academy of Science. In addition to his academic work, he is an award-winning dramatist with numerous radio-writing credits for the BBC.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

“If I had a thousand lives to live, I'd want to live every one of them as a priest.” Detroit's new Archbishop Edward Weisenburger visits the podcast studio to share his vocation story with Fr. Craig Giera and Fr. Drew Mabee, hosts of the Men of the Hearts podcast. Recording on the historic day of Pope Leo XIV's election, Archbishop Weisenburger reflects on where he was when he heard the news, his past encounters with Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, and his anticipation of receiving the pallium in Rome. He discusses his early call to the priesthood, formative seminary years, ministry across several dioceses, and his advice to young men discerning the priesthood.(0:25) Hosts Fr. Craig Giera and Fr. Drew Mabee introduce a very special guest for this episode, Detroit's new Archbishop Edward Weisenburger. As the episode is being recorded on the day of Pope Leo XIV's election, Archbishop Weisenburger begins by recounting where he was when he heard the joyful news of the first American pope in the history of the Catholic Church. (6:06) Archbishop Weisenburger looks back on some of the many ways Pope Francis made a difference in his life as a priest and bishop. He describes his ad limina visits to the Vatican as a bishop to meet with Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. He then looks ahead to his next trip to Rome this summer, when Pope Leo XIV will present him with his pallium—a blessed, thin white band of woolen fabric worn over his shoulders, a symbol of sheep being laid on the shoulders of the shepherd.(16:02) Archbishop Weisenburger expresses his gratitude for the smooth onboarding process following his arrival in the Archdiocese of Detroit. He also touches on the importance of prayer in the life of a priest. The group briefly revisits where they were when they heard the announcement of Pope Leo XIV: Fr. Drew was driving to Sacred Heart Major Seminary and trying not to crash from excitement; Fr. Craig was crowded around a bakery television with other patrons, and Archbishop Weisenburger was stopped by joyous strangers while walking through the airport. (21:38) The group segues to Archbishop Weisenburger's vocation story, which he calls “boring.” The seed was planted very, very early in his life, as he was always intrigued at Mass. He only attended Catholic school for one year, as a second-grader while his dad served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam. However, the family was very involved in parish life. He remembers dressing as an altar server for the first time in third grade: “It just hit me. I felt more right in that moment than anything [else] I had done.” (28:54) Archbishop Weisenburger recalls that his life “kind of exploded” in seminary college. He was interested in tennis and racquetball, loved to read, and made friendships that still stand today. The academics were intense, which prepared him well for his subsequent theology studies at the American College of Louvain, a Roman Catholic seminary in Leuven, Belgium. At his first assignment as a priest, he remembers attending Anointing of the Sick calls late at night with his pastor. (38:59) Archbishop Weisenburger recalls visiting home midway through his studies in Belgium, a point at which he decided to go “full speed ahead” toward the priesthood. The group spends some time discussing his calls to become Bishop of Salina, Bishop of Tucson, and Archbishop of Detroit. Then, revisiting his time as a priest in Oklahoma City, Archbishop Weisenburger recalls ministering to the family of Blessed Stanley Rother.(49:38) Archbishop says he is grateful for the twists and turns of his ministry, recalling a pastor who once told him “anything that can be learned in life can be used by God.” He remembers serving alongside religious sisters from Mexico in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. (55:24) Fr. Craig asks if Archbishop Weisenburger feels the prayers of so many people in...

Conférence : "L'Utopie de Thomas More : les coulisses de la fabrique d'un livre". Peine de mort, exode rural, propriété privée, éducation citoyenne, dialogue interreligieux …dans son ouvrage « l'Utopie », Thomas More aborde tous les thèmes qui fondent le « vivre ensemble ». Le livre paraît à Louvain, en 1516, il s'agit de l'un des textes majeurs de la pensée moderne. Quelles raisons expliquent le choix de ce lieu d'impression ? Quels réseaux le diplomate anglais a-t-il activé pour faire paraître son livre ? Quel fut le succès de l'œuvre de cet homme qui paya de sa vie son intransigeance à l'égard d'Henri VIII ? Dans le cadre du cycle de conférences "Un livre, une histoire". Avec les Lumières de Renaud Adam, chargé de mission à l'Université de Liège. Conférence : "L'Utopie de Thomas More : les coulisses de la fabrique d'un livre". Dans le cadre du cycle de conférences "Un livre, une histoire". Quand? Jeudi 15 mai 2025, de 17h30 à 19h Où? Presses Universitaires de Liège (Galerie Opéra), Place de la République française, 35 à 4000 Liège Entrée gratuite, mais inscription obligatoire : geoffrey.grandjean@uliege.be 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.