Explorez tous les épisodes du podcast Droit international des institutions - Samantha Besson

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

Conférence - Michael Doyle :More than Just Peace

Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure

Professeure associée de philosophie, Université de New York

Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure est invitée par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition de la Pr Samantha Besson.

Résumé

John Rawls's publication of The Law of Peoples was a profound attempt to design a just peace. Beyond the simple cessation of armed hostilities, the Law of Peoples offered more than (just) peace. It committed its peoples to honor human rights, tolerate other decent political regimes and accept a "duty of assistance" owed by all decent societies to all those in dire need.

Importantly, for Rawls, the project he outlined in The Law of Peoples is a constructed peace, one that needs to be established among liberal peoples and then extended to other decent societies. The construction raises the questions of why it is that Rawls thought the peace (1) needed to be constructed and could be constructed in a world otherwise divided by insecurity and strife among states. In doing this, he directly addressed the Realist challenges described by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and revived by Thomas Nagel. It also raises the question of (2) why Rawls thought it was necessary to go beyond Perpetual Peace, a Liberal model of international peace constructed by Immanuel Kant (Rawls's inspiration and answer to the first question), and (3) why Rawls might have thought that the extension beyond the Kantian peace among liberal republics to a wider "just peace" that incorporated a duty of assistance was possible, and indeed "realistic."

Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure

Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure est professeure associée de philosophie et membre du corps professoral affilié en droit à New York University. Elle a rejoint NYU en 2023 après avoir été professeure adjointe de philosophie et professeure affiliée de sciences politiques à l'université de Stanford, ainsi que directrice du Stanford Basic Income Lab. Bidadanure est une philosophe des inégalités. Elle examine les fondements de notre engagement envers l'égalité, théorise l'injustice propre aux inégalités sociales et explore des politiques publiques pour y remédier. Son livre Justice Across Ages: Treating Young and Old as Equals (Oxford University Press, 2021) s'interroge sur la manière dont nous devons appréhender les inégalités entre les individus à différents stades de leur vie. Son livre propose un cadre pour guider une distribution équitable de biens publics, tels que les emplois, les soins de santé, les revenus et le pouvoir politique entre les groupes d'âge. Son travail s'étend de la philosophie politique aux politiques publiques. Elle a écrit entre autres sur le revenu de base, les politiques de la jeunesse, les quotas parlementaires pour les jeunes, le capital de départ, et les baby bonds. Son nouveau projet de livre se concentre sur l'égalité relationnelle. Elle examine les modes de relations inégalitaires, y compris l'objectification, l'animalisation, la diabolisation et l'infantilisation. En offrant une analyse conceptuelle et normative de ces modes d'infériorisation, elle met en avant un nouveau cadre théorique pour comprendre ce que l'égalité relationnelle implique positivement.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

Conférence - Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure : Trashification

Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure

Professeure associée de philosophie, Université de New York

Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure est invitée par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition de la Pr Samantha Besson.

Résumé

L'égalitarisme post-rawlsien a été façonné par deux courants principaux. Les égalitaristes distributifs, tout d'abord, soutiennent qu'une société juste est celle dans laquelle chacun reçoit sa part juste (Sen 1979 ; Dworkin 1981 ; Arneson 1989 ; Cohen 1989). La plupart des débats internes à ce premier camp se sont concentrés sur la détermination du bien X central à la justice égalitaire : les opportunités, les biens premiers, les ressources, le bien-être, ou les capabilités. Le second courant de l'égalitarisme contemporain est relationnel. Les égalitaristes relationnels soutiennent que nous devons aller au-delà du paradigme distributif pour mieux envisager l'égalité (Young 1990 ; Anderson 1999 ; Scheffler 2003). Au lieu de se concentrer sur la relation possessive entre une personne et ses biens et la relation comparative entre individus, les égalitaristes relationnels nous encouragent à examiner les différentes manières dont les contextes institutionnels et les modes de relation inégalitaires influencent nos positions. Ils nous incitent à élargir les paramètres à prendre en compte pour penser l'égalité : au-delà des biens et de leur distribution, il faut considérer le respect, la reconnaissance ainsi que l'absence d'oppression et de domination. Ils nous invitent à appréhender la justice comme l'établissement de communautés dont les membres se voient et se traitent comme des égaux.

Mon approche à l'égalité est fondamentalement influencée par l'égalitarisme relationnel. Mon premier livre, Justice Across Ages: Treating Young and Old as Equals (OUP, 2021), applique les notions de l'égalitarisme relationnel à la justice entre les groupes d'âge et générations. Je démontre que les questions d'âge et de temporalité mettent en lumière la nécessité d'une composante relationnelle dans la justice égalitaire. Néanmoins, la notion de rapport d'égal à égal est quelque peu opaque. Des progrès sont nécessaires pour développer des théories de l'égalitarisme relationnel qui soient aussi précises que certaines théories distributives l'étaient auparavant. C'est l'objet de mon nouveau projet de livre, provisoirement intitulé Infériorisé. Le livre adopte une stratégie négative : j'étudie les modes de relation inégalitaires que nous avons des raisons d'éviter et j'en retire une proposition positive de ce que les relations d'égalité impliquent.

Écrit à la croisée de la philosophie et des sciences sociales, le livre présente une typologie des modes d'infériorisation les plus sérieux et courants, de l'infantilisation et l'objectivation à la diabolisation et l'animalisation. Il offre des définitions précises de ces « technologies d'avilissement » (Chamayou 2008), mettant en lumière leurs spécificités, leur fonction sociale et les politiques publiques auxquelles elles sont souvent associées. Je me concentre sur une variété de cas historiques et contemporains, de la diabolisation des immigrés et des bénéficiaires de l'aide sociale, à l'infantilisation des plus âgés, en passant par l'animalisation des Tutsis durant le génocide de 1994 au Rwanda. La contribution philosophique la plus importante du livre est le développement d'une nouvelle théorie de l'égalité relationnelle. Ma contribution aux sciences sociales est une typologie précise, qui peut être mobilisée pour identifier et mesurer les inégalités sociales. Dans cette perspective, je collabore avec des sociologues et économistes du Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequalities pour créer une nouvelle mesure relationnelle des inégalités basée sur ma théorisation.

Au Collège de France, je compte présenter un nouveau chapitre de mon projet de livre sur ce que j'appelle la « trashification » – une forme d'objectification dans laquelle les individus sont perçus comme des déchets et traités en conséquence. Étant donné que les déchets ont une valeur négative et doivent être jetés ou cachés, la trashification représente une forme d'objectification particulièrement extrême. En m'appuyant sur des exemples contemporains et sur les théories existantes de l'objectification, je clarifie les spécificités de ce mode d'infériorisation. Mon point de départ est l'insulte très courante de « white trash » et la trashification des Blancs pauvres aux États-Unis. Ce récit dominant est discuté par l'auteure Cedar Monroe, qui a grandi dans une communauté pauvre dans l'État de Washington : « Les Blancs pauvres, toujours poussés vers l'ouest en tant qu'avant-garde de l'acquisition de terres par les intérêts des corporations, ont finalement été poussés aussi loin à l'ouest que possible. Là, beaucoup d'entre nous ont été jetés, tout comme les tas de déchets qui entourent les villes de tentes qui s'étendent le long de la côte. Des gens- poubelles [trash people] vivant parmi des déchets : tel est le récit dominant de nos vies. » (Monroe 2024).

La trashification a des visages multiples. Cependant, une spécificité de la trashification est qu'elle n'implique pas toujours l'instrumentalisation – l'utilisation d'individus comme instruments ou outils. Alors même que de nombreuses formes d'objectification sont liées à l'exploitation, la trashification résulte souvent plutôt en négligence, non-assistance et abandon. Comme les déchets, les personnes trashifiées sont perçues comme inutilisables et doivent disparaître. Le mal propre à l'objectification est qu'elle constitue un traitement des individus comme un pur moyen en vue d'une fin (Nussbaum 1995). En revanche, l'injustice de la trashification peut être caractérisée, dans certains cas, par le traitement de personnes comme intouchables et jetables. Les trashifiés sont perçus comme sans valeur, et des communautés entières sont abandonnées à la mort. Ils meurent jeunes à cause de négligences médicales, de maladies et d'infections évitables, de brutalité policière, de suicide ou de surdose. Leurs décès sont normalisés, attendus et peu remarqués. À partir de cet exemple, j'élargis mon étude à la trashification des sans-abris dans les villes américaines et aux cas des intouchables Dalits d'Inde.

La notion de « trashification » est essentielle pour comprendre une série de cas contemporains, et profondément violents, de marginalisation. Sa mise en lumière permet de progresser dans notre théorisation de l'égalitarisme relationnel, car, tout comme la ségrégation, elle entraîne une rupture des liens qui sont une condition préalable à l'égalité relationnelle.

Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure

Juliana Uhuru Bidadanure est professeure associée de philosophie et membre du corps professoral affilié en droit à New York University. Elle a rejoint NYU en 2023 après avoir été professeure adjointe de philosophie et professeure affiliée de sciences politiques à l'université de Stanford, ainsi que directrice du Stanford Basic Income Lab. Bidadanure est une philosophe des inégalités. Elle examine les fondements de notre engagement envers l'égalité, théorise l'injustice propre aux inégalités sociales et explore des politiques publiques pour y remédier. Son livre Justice Across Ages: Treating Young and Old as Equals (Oxford University Press, 2021) s'interroge sur la manière dont nous devons appréhender les inégalités entre les individus à différents stades de leur vie. Son livre propose un cadre pour guider une distribution équitable de biens publics, tels que les emplois, les soins de santé, les revenus et le pouvoir politique entre les groupes d'âge. Son travail s'étend de la philosophie politique aux politiques publiques. Elle a écrit entre autres sur le revenu de base, les politiques de la jeunesse, les quotas parlementaires pour les jeunes, le capital de départ, et les baby bonds. Son nouveau projet de livre se concentre sur l'égalité relationnelle. Elle examine les modes de relations inégalitaires, y compris l'objectification, l'animalisation, la diabolisation et l'infantilisation. En offrant une analyse conceptuelle et normative de ces modes d'infériorisation, elle met en avant un nouveau cadre théorique pour comprendre ce que l'égalité relationnelle implique positivement.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

06 - Souverainetés : Souverainetés d'un monde au singulier à habiter au pluriel

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

05 - Souverainetés : Souverainetés européennes

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

04 - Souverainetés : Souverainetés, solidarité & équité

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

03 - Souverainetés : Souverainetés, territorialité & propriété

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

02 - Souverainetés : Souverainetés, autorité & juridiction

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

01 - Souverainetés : Souverainetés, égalité & popularité

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

Conférence - Alain Papaux : Droit et peinture : la cause animale, de l'escargot (del Cossa) à l'hermine (da Vinci)

Alain Papaux

Professeur de Philosophie du droit de l'environnement, Université de Lausanne

Alain Papaux est invité par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition de la Pr Samantha Besson. La conférence se tiendra dans le cadre d'une convention signée avec l'Université de Lausanne.

Résumé

Adoptant la cause animale pour objet de réflexion et la peinture pour moyen de cognition, nous interrogerons la façon dont le droit opère catégorisation du réel, en particulier sa manière singulière, de l'ordre du juste, de traduire les données scientifiques, de l'ordre du vrai. De l'escargot (dans l'Annonciation de del Cossa) à l'hermine (dans Cecilia Gallerani de Vinci), la cause animale, à la faveur des questions et contradictions qu'elle suscite (animal-machine, animal-meuble, « valeur intrinsèque », « dignité » de l'animal), oblige à revisiter la catégorisation juridique du réel. Par conséquent à réviser notre rapport au monde, pour qui admet que le droit revêt une puissante fonction anthropologique (A. Supiot ; A. Schiavone) : et si l'humain était un « vivant » parmi d'autres animés, littéralement « animaux », tous au bénéfice de la qualité de « sujet de droit » ? Une technique juridique banale, en vérité, laquelle, de surcroît, pourrait bien constituer un obstacle à la transition écologique.

Alain Papaux

Études de droit, de philosophie, de linguistique et d'histoire de l'art aux universités de Lausanne, Genève, Heidelberg et Saint-Louis de Bruxelles à l'European Academy of Legal Theory. Ancien Conseiller juridique du Gouvernement du canton de Vaud (Suisse). Professeur ordinaire de Méthodologie juridique, de philosophie du droit et de philosophie du droit de l'environnement à l'Université de Lausanne. Professeur invité de théorie du droit, d'épistémologie et de sémiotique juridiques aux universités de Bruxelles (10 fois), Aix, Toulon (2 fois), Rennes et Neuchâtel (2 fois). Cocréateur de la collection L'écologie en questions aux P.U.F.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Katia Coutant, Alban Guyomarc'h & Yann Robert : General Discussion, introduced and chaired by Young Researchers

Panel 4: General Conclusions and Discussion

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Yannick Radi : General Conclusions

Panel 4: General Conclusions and Discussion

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Stéphanie Ruphy : Comment

Panel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Jonathan B. Wiener : Space as Province, Property, and Planetary Protection: Risk and the Rise of the Interplanetary

Panel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Margaret Moore : Exploration and Exploitation: Territorial Rights in Outer Space

Panel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - 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 Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Fabio Tronchetti : Rethinking "Common Heritage of Mankind" in the 21st Century: a Pathway towards Enabling Lunar Activities for the Benefit of All

Panel 3: The Relations between Scientific "Exploration" and Commercial "Exploitation" of Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Niki Aloupi : Comment

Panel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including Commoning

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Michael Byers : Que le jeu commence ! Commercial Space Mining and the Politics of Treaty Interpretation

Panel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including Commoning

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Philippe Achilleas : International Space Law Facing the Commercial Exploitation of Celestial Body Resources

Panel 2: Possible International Legal and Institutional Regimes for the Use of Outer Space, including Commoning

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Isabelle Sourbès-Verger: Comment

Comment

Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Alex Mills: Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?

Private International Law and the Possibility of Extraterrestrial Property: "Finders, Keepers" or "the Province of All Mankind"?

Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Lukas Rass-Masson: Property in Outer Space and Competition between Legal Orders from a Private Law Perspective

Property in Outer Space and Competition between Legal Orders from a Private Law Perspective

Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Katrina M. Wyman: Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?

Early Legal Visions of Space: Does Myres McDougal's Work Hold Lessons for Today?

Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Anna Stilz: Sovereignty and Property in Celestial Resources

Sovereignty and Property in Celestial Resources

Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Stephan Hobe: Sovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space Law

Sovereignty, Territorial Jurisdiction and Property: an Inextricable Triangle in Space Law

Panel 1: Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property in Outer Space

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy

Colloque - Alessandro Morbidelli: Outer Space Exploration and Use: What Resources Out There?

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2025-2026

Colloque - The "Province of All Mankind"? Property in Outer Space under Public and Private International Law & Philosophy: Property in Outer Space: Context, Stakes and Possibilities

Colloque organisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, les 25 et 26 septembre 2025

Présentation

As 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 Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Partie 4 : Justice et vérité du génocide : « passé qui ne passe pas » et « assassins de la mémoire »

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - Rafaëlle Maison : Mémoire, histoire et temps présent : le cas de Gaza

Rafaëlle Maison

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Partie 4 : Justice et vérité du génocide : « passé qui ne passe pas » et « assassins de la mémoire »

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - Omer Bartov : Eradicating Gaza: How to Remember and Forget Genocide

Omer Bartov

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Partie 3 : Conditions du génocide : intentions et/ou processus génocidaires

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - Christian Ingrao : Pour en finir avec la « motivation ». Intentions, stratégies, situations et expériences des acteurs de la violence nazie

Christian Ingrao

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Partie 3 : Conditions du génocide : intentions et/ou processus génocidaires

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - Guénaël Mettraux : Établir le crime de génocide dans le procès pénal : histoire, émotion et preuves

Guénaël Mettraux

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Partie 2 : Auteurs du génocide : individuels, collectifs et/ou institutionnels

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - Monique Chemillier-Gendreau : Les auteurs de génocide : de la difficulté de démêler ce qui est individuel de ce qui est collectif

Monique Chemillier-Gendreau

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Partie 2 : Auteurs du génocide : individuels, collectifs et/ou institutionnels

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - Mark Levene : The Elephant in the Room: Genocides, Past, Present and Future in an Era of Anthropogenic Omnicide

Mark Levene

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Partie 1 : Interdiction du génocide : des violences et « légendes noires » au crime de droit coutumier

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - Jean-Clément Martin : Guerres de Vendée et génocide : au-delà des polémiques, une question capitale

Jean-Clément Martin

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Partie 1 : Interdiction du génocide : des violences et « légendes noires » au crime de droit coutumier

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - William Schabas : Le génocide, norme de droit coutumier, mais depuis quand ?

William Schabas

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Colloque - Génocide. Droit et histoire du crime des crimes - Henry Laurens & Samantha Besson : Introduction

Colloque coorganisé par la Pr Samantha Besson, chaire Droit international des institutions, et le Pr Henry Laurens, chaire Histoire contemporaine du monde arabe.

Déclaré pour la première fois comme un crime par l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies en 1946 et interdit par la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide de 1948, le génocide est souvent considéré comme le « crime des crimes ». Contrairement aux trois autres grands crimes codifiés à nouveau depuis dans les statuts des différents tribunaux pénaux internationaux (dont le Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) du 17 juillet 1998), le crime de génocide n'a jamais varié dans sa formulation. En comparaison, et jusqu'à il y a peu, il a en outre été plus rarement invoqué. Ses différents éléments n'ont, dès lors, aussi été que plus rarement interprétés dans la jurisprudence internationale, que ce soit par les tribunaux pénaux internationaux ad hoc comme les Tribunaux pénaux internationaux pour le Rwanda ou l'ex-Yougoslavie ou par la CPI. De cette permanence de la formulation du crime et de son interprétation comparativement plus limitée, certains ont déduit une force normative parmi les plus élevées en droit international, une valeur de reconnaissance historique des crimes commis et, c'est lié, un rôle avant tout préventif de son interdiction.

Depuis une vingtaine d'années, toutefois, une évolution significative se fait sentir grâce aux procès pénaux internationaux, puis nationaux pour génocide, notamment en ex-Yougoslavie et au Rwanda. En marge de ces procès, c'est aussi la violation de l'obligation de droit international qu'ont les États de prévenir le génocide qui est invoquée et précisée de manière de plus en plus fréquente en pratique. C'est ainsi que la jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) s'est étoffée autour de l'obligation de prévention du génocide (p.ex. affaires Croatie c. Serbie (1999-2015), Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Serbie-et-Monténégro (1993-2007)). La clause de compétence de l'art. IX de la Convention de 1948 permet en effet à tout État partie à la Convention de saisir la CIJ d'un différend sur son interprétation. De plus en plus d'États y font recours, y compris afin d'obtenir un accès à la CIJ. C'est ainsi qu'actuellement, cette clause de compétence est au fondement de pas moins de cinq procédures contentieuses contre des États et, dès lors, de multiples ordonnances et arrêts à venir en lien avec la situation au Myanmar, en Ukraine, à Gaza et au Soudan : Soudan c. Émirats arabes unis (2025-) ; Nicaragua c. Allemagne (2024-), Afrique du Sud c. Israël (2023-), Ukraine c. Fédération de Russie (2022-) et Gambie c. Myanmar (2019-).

Face à cette évolution rapide de la pratique internationale en matière de génocide et aux nouvelles questions qu'elle soulève pour la conceptualisation du « crime des crimes », un bilan juridique et historique s'impose. Étant donné la place centrale qu'occupe à divers titres l'histoire au sein du raisonnement juridique en matière de génocide (p.ex. au titre de sources coutumières, de preuve, de causalité ou encore d'attribution de comportement, voire de responsabilité), il est intéressant d'y procéder en dialogue avec les historiens. La Convention de 1948 invite d'ailleurs les juristes à se rapprocher des historiens, voire participe à leurs débats, puisqu'elle reconnaît dans son préambule « qu'à toutes les périodes de l'histoire le génocide a infligé de grandes pertes à l'humanité ». L'intérêt d'un tel bilan vaut aussi en histoire, ne serait-ce que parce que cette histoire s'écrit souvent en ou par la justice. La question se pose en outre de l'application du concept (juridique) récent de génocide aux réalités mouvantes de l'histoire, en particulier à un moment et à des endroits où de larges pans du passé sont vécus comme appartenant toujours à notre présent. Il ne s'agit pas de nier l'existence d'exterminations de masses par le passé, mais de déterminer si le concept de génocide apporte un élément supplémentaire de compréhension historique des processus étudiés.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Conférence - Hilary Charlesworth : La Cour internationale de Justice et ses critiques

Hilary Charlesworth

Juge auprès de la Cour internationale de Justice de La Haye

Hilary Charlesworth est invitée par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition de la Pr Samantha Besson.

La conférence est en anglais.

Résumé

Cette conférence examinera certaines des critiques générales adressées à la Cour internationale de Justice et s'efforcera d'y répondre. Il s'agit notamment de la critique des chercheurs réalistes, qui soutiennent que la Cour est essentiellement un organe politique, mais sans aucun pouvoir ; de la critique des chercheurs du Tiers Monde (TWAIL), qui soulignent les origines coloniales de la Cour et les éléments de colonialisme qui traversent ses jugements ; et de la critique des chercheurs féministes, qui s'intéressent à la sous-représentation des femmes à la Cour, et à l'effet qu'elle a sur la jurisprudence de la Cour.

La juge Charlesworth est une éminente juriste qui a apporté une contribution exceptionnelle à l'étude et à la pratique du droit international. Elle est juge à la Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) depuis son élection en novembre 2021. Avant de rejoindre la CIJ, Hilary Charlesworth était Laureate Professor à la faculté de droit de l'université de Melbourne et Distinguished Professor à l'université nationale australienne (ANU). Elle est diplômée de l'université de Melbourne et de la faculté de droit de Harvard, où elle a obtenu son doctorat. Les recherches et publications primées de Hilary Charlesworth couvrent divers domaines, notamment la structure du système juridique international, la consolidation de la paix, les droits de l'Homme et le droit humanitaire, ainsi que des travaux novateurs sur le genre et le droit international et sur la démocratie internationale.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Conférence - Liam Murphy - Legal Practice and the Responsibility of Individuals

Liam Murphy

Professeur de philosophie du droit, New York University (NYU) Law School

Liam Murphy est invité par l'assemblée du Collège de France, sur proposition de la Pr Samantha Besson. Dans le cadre de la convention signée entre le Collège de France et la New York University.

La conférence est en anglais.

Résumé

Some legal practices, such as the private law of obligations and property, are justified by the good that general compliance with their rules bring about. It cannot be said, however, that each particular act of compliance by individuals itself contributes to that good outcome. And yet there is clearly an ethical tie between individuals and the rules of the practices. Leaving aside cases where the law simply protects independent moral rights, the same points can be made about compliance with law generally. This lecture explores the question of how we should understand the ethical tie between individuals and legal practices that are justified in terms of the social good produced by general compliance. An imperfect duty of impartial beneficence will play a central role in the account.

iam Murphy works in legal, moral, and political philosophy and the application of these inquiries to law, legal institutions, and legal theory. Subjects of his publications range from abstract questions of moral philosophy (for example, "Nonlegislative Justification" in Jeff McMahan et al., Principles and Persons: The Legacy of Derek Parfit, 2021) to concrete issues of legal and economic policy (for example, The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice, 2002, co-authored with Thomas Nagel). A central theme in all Murphy's work is that legal, moral, and political theory cannot be pursued independently of one another; they are, in fact, different dimensions of a single subject. This theme is evident in his book What Makes Law (2014), which locates the traditional philosophical issue of the grounds of law (the factors that determine the content of the law in force) within broader issues of political theory. Much of Murphy's recent work has been in the field of private law theory, though he has also recently returned to tax policy, writing a new paper with Thomas Nagel on wealth taxation. Going forward, Murphy is working on a book project that concerns the connections and differences among the justifications of practices (including legal practices) and the moral requirements that apply to individuals, collectives of individuals, and states. Murphy has been awarded fellowships at Columbia's Society of Fellows in the Humanities, Harvard's Society of Fellows, and the National Humanities Center. He was vice dean of NYU School of Law from 2007 to 2010.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Séminaire - Pierre d'Argent : Utiliser le droit international pour le remplacer : l'Union européenne

Intervenant(s) :

Pierre d'Argent

Université catholique de Louvain

Résumé

Bien qu'issue de traités internationaux, l'Union européenne (UE) procède fondamentalement de novations juridiques : non seulement, elle vise à remplacer le droit national par le droit européen au sein de chaque État membre, mais elle vise également à remplacer le droit international par le droit de l'Union entre eux. Ce faisant, le droit de l'Union proclame son autonomie par rapport au droit international et l'UE elle-même remplace les États membres internationalement.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

06 - Le droit international des régions : Le droit international des régions : propositions post-impériales pour instituer un « monde des régions »

Prenant acte des nombreux processus de régionalisation du droit international et, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, de leur généralisation et de leur approfondissement, et notamment de la multiplication des organisations internationales régionales dans toutes les régions du monde et de leur prise croissante sur l'ordre juridique et institutionnel international, le cours de cette année pose la question de ce que les régions font au droit international et de ce que le droit international fait aux régions.

Comment est-ce qu'un droit international à l'origine régional, car issu principalement du droit public européen, en est venu à valoir universellement et comment assurer sa légitimité universelle dans ces conditions ? Comment cela se traduit-il dans les concepts de « région », « droit régional » et « organisation régionale » en et du droit international ? Quels sont les rapports entre « régions » et « civilisations » en droit international et entre les formes institutionnelles qu'elles prennent désormais les unes et les autres ? Quelle est et devrait être la place des droits internationaux régionaux issus des différentes régions du monde au sein des procédures d'adoption et d'interprétation du droit international universel ? Comment l'universalité des droits de l'Homme peut-elle et doit-elle se réconcilier avec la coexistence de différents systèmes régionaux (en l'occurrence, européen, interaméricain, africain et arabe) de protection de ces mêmes droits et les interprétations parfois différentes que leurs cours respectives en donnent ? Plus généralement, comment comprendre les termes « universalisme » et « régionalisme » en droit international et leurs rapports ? Quelles formes institutionnelles le droit international, prisonnier de la structure binaire « État-organisation internationale », donne-t-il aux régions et peut-il mieux faire pour assurer la légitimité politique du droit qui en est issu ? Comment articuler à l'avenir ces nombreuses organisations internationales régionales aux États, entre elles et aux organisations internationales universelles ? En tant qu'Européens, pouvons-nous encore tolérer l'exceptionnalisme européen en droit international et le positionnement officiel de l'UE en tant qu'ordre juridique et institutionnel « autonome » et « nouveau », et quelle devrait aujourd'hui être la place de l'UE parmi les organisations internationales régionales si elle ne doit être ni sui generis ni un modèle pour les autres ?

Ces questions et bien d'autres encore nous occuperont dans ce cours consacré au droit international des régions et au monde post-impérial qu'il pourrait (enfin) contribuer à instituer. Certaines d'entre elles seront approfondies dans le cadre du séminaire.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Séminaire - Nicolas Levrat : L'universalité des droits de l'Homme à l'épreuve de la régionalisation : réflexions à partir des droits des minorités

Intervenant(s) :

Nicolas Levrat

Université de Genève & rapporteur spécial des Nations unies sur les questions relatives aux minorités

Résumé

En 1948, lorsque l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU adopte la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'Homme, elle affirme « que les Nations unies ne peuvent pas demeurer indifférentes au sort des minorités ». Elle décide néanmoins « de ne pas traiter par une disposition spécifique dans le corps de cette Déclaration la question des minorités », « [c]onsidérant qu'il est difficile d'adopter une solution uniforme de cette question complexe et délicate qui revêt des aspects particuliers dans chaque État ou elle se pose ». En 1995, l'article premier de la Convention-cadre pour la protection des minorités nationales du Conseil de l'Europe – seul traité plurilatéral relatif au droit des minorités – affirme en son article premier que « [l]a protection des minorités nationales et des droits et libertés des personnes appartenant à ces minorités fait partie intégrante de la protection internationale des droits de l'homme […] ». Dans ce séminaire, le Pr Levrat examinera les pistes existantes pour concilier la dimension universelle et les nécessaires déclinaisons régionales – c'est-à-dire tant supranationales (comme le Conseil de l'Europe ou l'Union africaine) qu'infranationales (comme p. ex. la structure fédérale de l'Inde ou la régionalisation en Espagne), abordant ainsi la double dimension du concept de régionalisation des droits des personnes appartenant à des minorités. Son propos esquisse un possible droit des minorités multiscalaire, à la fois pluriel et universel, explorant ainsi les rivages d'une dimension pluriverselle de la protection des droits humains.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

05 - Le droit international des régions : L'Union européenne, enfin une organisation régionale parmi d'autres ?

Prenant acte des nombreux processus de régionalisation du droit international et, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, de leur généralisation et de leur approfondissement, et notamment de la multiplication des organisations internationales régionales dans toutes les régions du monde et de leur prise croissante sur l'ordre juridique et institutionnel international, le cours de cette année pose la question de ce que les régions font au droit international et de ce que le droit international fait aux régions.

Comment est-ce qu'un droit international à l'origine régional, car issu principalement du droit public européen, en est venu à valoir universellement et comment assurer sa légitimité universelle dans ces conditions ? Comment cela se traduit-il dans les concepts de « région », « droit régional » et « organisation régionale » en et du droit international ? Quels sont les rapports entre « régions » et « civilisations » en droit international et entre les formes institutionnelles qu'elles prennent désormais les unes et les autres ? Quelle est et devrait être la place des droits internationaux régionaux issus des différentes régions du monde au sein des procédures d'adoption et d'interprétation du droit international universel ? Comment l'universalité des droits de l'Homme peut-elle et doit-elle se réconcilier avec la coexistence de différents systèmes régionaux (en l'occurrence, européen, interaméricain, africain et arabe) de protection de ces mêmes droits et les interprétations parfois différentes que leurs cours respectives en donnent ? Plus généralement, comment comprendre les termes « universalisme » et « régionalisme » en droit international et leurs rapports ? Quelles formes institutionnelles le droit international, prisonnier de la structure binaire « État-organisation internationale », donne-t-il aux régions et peut-il mieux faire pour assurer la légitimité politique du droit qui en est issu ? Comment articuler à l'avenir ces nombreuses organisations internationales régionales aux États, entre elles et aux organisations internationales universelles ? En tant qu'Européens, pouvons-nous encore tolérer l'exceptionnalisme européen en droit international et le positionnement officiel de l'UE en tant qu'ordre juridique et institutionnel « autonome » et « nouveau », et quelle devrait aujourd'hui être la place de l'UE parmi les organisations internationales régionales si elle ne doit être ni sui generis ni un modèle pour les autres ?

Ces questions et bien d'autres encore nous occuperont dans ce cours consacré au droit international des régions et au monde post-impérial qu'il pourrait (enfin) contribuer à instituer. Certaines d'entre elles seront approfondies dans le cadre du séminaire.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Séminaire - Apollin Koagne Zouapet : Le régionalisme dans la pratique judiciaire de la Cour internationale de Justice

Intervenant(s) :

Apollin Koagne Zouapet

Cour internationale de Justice, La Haye

Résumé

Organe judiciaire principal des Nations unies, la Cour internationale de Justice occupe à coup sûr une place unique dans le paysage des institutions et des juridictions internationales. C'est en effet la seule juridiction internationale universelle à compétence générale. La Cour est ainsi marquée d'une double universalité. D'abord une universalité géographique, au même titre que l'organisation internationale à laquelle elle appartient, l'Organisation des Nations unies : l'accès à la Cour n'est pas limité à un groupe spécifique d'États, mais virtuellement à tous les États du monde dès lors qu'ils satisfont aux conditions de son statut. Ensuite, une universalité de sa compétence matérielle : la Cour est compétente pour régler tous les différends relatifs au droit international qui lui sont soumis ; elle peut connaître en théorie, de toute question de droit international. Cet ADN résolument universaliste de la Cour soulève des questions particulières dans une société internationale où la tendance est désormais au regroupement en grands blocs régionaux, qu'ils soient géographiques, linguistiques ou idéologiques. La Cour dispose-t-elle de la structure et des moyens pour faire face à une régionalisation du droit international ? Existe-t-il une antinomie entre l'universalisme dont la Cour est à la fois porteuse (et le symbole) et le régionalisme ? Comment la Cour traite-t-elle du droit régional dans sa jurisprudence ? Dans un monde où le régionalisme s'accompagne de bouleversements géopolitiques, et de revendications d'une réforme des institutions internationales, ces questions que le séminaire se propose d'aborder touchent à la question même de la légitimité et de l'avenir de la « Cour mondiale ».

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

04 - Le droit international des régions : État, organisation internationale universelle et… confédération régionale : tertium non datur en droit international des institutions ?

Prenant acte des nombreux processus de régionalisation du droit international et, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, de leur généralisation et de leur approfondissement, et notamment de la multiplication des organisations internationales régionales dans toutes les régions du monde et de leur prise croissante sur l'ordre juridique et institutionnel international, le cours de cette année pose la question de ce que les régions font au droit international et de ce que le droit international fait aux régions.

Comment est-ce qu'un droit international à l'origine régional, car issu principalement du droit public européen, en est venu à valoir universellement et comment assurer sa légitimité universelle dans ces conditions ? Comment cela se traduit-il dans les concepts de « région », « droit régional » et « organisation régionale » en et du droit international ? Quels sont les rapports entre « régions » et « civilisations » en droit international et entre les formes institutionnelles qu'elles prennent désormais les unes et les autres ? Quelle est et devrait être la place des droits internationaux régionaux issus des différentes régions du monde au sein des procédures d'adoption et d'interprétation du droit international universel ? Comment l'universalité des droits de l'Homme peut-elle et doit-elle se réconcilier avec la coexistence de différents systèmes régionaux (en l'occurrence, européen, interaméricain, africain et arabe) de protection de ces mêmes droits et les interprétations parfois différentes que leurs cours respectives en donnent ? Plus généralement, comment comprendre les termes « universalisme » et « régionalisme » en droit international et leurs rapports ? Quelles formes institutionnelles le droit international, prisonnier de la structure binaire « État-organisation internationale », donne-t-il aux régions et peut-il mieux faire pour assurer la légitimité politique du droit qui en est issu ? Comment articuler à l'avenir ces nombreuses organisations internationales régionales aux États, entre elles et aux organisations internationales universelles ? En tant qu'Européens, pouvons-nous encore tolérer l'exceptionnalisme européen en droit international et le positionnement officiel de l'UE en tant qu'ordre juridique et institutionnel « autonome » et « nouveau », et quelle devrait aujourd'hui être la place de l'UE parmi les organisations internationales régionales si elle ne doit être ni sui generis ni un modèle pour les autres ?

Ces questions et bien d'autres encore nous occuperont dans ce cours consacré au droit international des régions et au monde post-impérial qu'il pourrait (enfin) contribuer à instituer. Certaines d'entre elles seront approfondies dans le cadre du séminaire.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Séminaire - François-Xavier Millet : Intégration régionale globale et protection des droits fondamentaux : le rôle des cours de justice

Intervenant(s) :

François-Xavier Millet

Université des Antilles

Résumé

Les cours de justice régionales sont nombreuses dans le monde d'aujourd'hui. Alors que trois d'entre elles sont dédiées aux droits fondamentaux, la plupart s'inscrivent dans le cadre d'une organisation régionale intégrée, qu'il s'agisse de l'Union européenne, de la Communauté andine ou encore de la Communauté économique des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest. Ces cours d'intégration régionale poursuivent généralement en premier lieu une finalité d'intégration. Dans le cadre de l'Union européenne, cela se traduit par la recherche d'une « union sans cesse plus étroite entre les peuples de l'Europe » à travers la construction d'un marché intérieur sans frontières et d'un espace de libre circulation des personnes. Dès lors, on peut imaginer que la jurisprudence de ces cours régionales, à l'image de la jurisprudence des fondations promue par la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, consiste avant tout à garantir l'effectivité des normes régionales et à conférer des droits aux individus et aux entreprises. Pourtant, les cours d'intégration régionale participent également, chacune à leur manière et sur la base de divers instruments, à la protection des droits fondamentaux « malgré » – ou parfois en vertu de – leur mandat d'intégration. Quels sont les facteurs, internes et externes, juridiques et extra-juridiques, qui expliquent cette jurisprudence ? Comment des cours destinées à garantir l'intégration régionale sont-elles devenues elles aussi des cours protégeant les droits fondamentaux ? Peut-on déceler une jurisprudence propre au Sud global répondant aux défis communs pour cette région que sont la décolonisation, la lutte contre la pauvreté et les inégalités ou la justice transitionnelle ?

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

02 - Le droit international des régions : Adopter du droit international universel dans un plurivers de civilisations : le rôle de la concertation intra- et inter-régionale

Prenant acte des nombreux processus de régionalisation du droit international et, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, de leur généralisation et de leur approfondissement, et notamment de la multiplication des organisations internationales régionales dans toutes les régions du monde et de leur prise croissante sur l'ordre juridique et institutionnel international, le cours de cette année pose la question de ce que les régions font au droit international et de ce que le droit international fait aux régions.

Comment est-ce qu'un droit international à l'origine régional, car issu principalement du droit public européen, en est venu à valoir universellement et comment assurer sa légitimité universelle dans ces conditions ? Comment cela se traduit-il dans les concepts de « région », « droit régional » et « organisation régionale » en et du droit international ? Quels sont les rapports entre « régions » et « civilisations » en droit international et entre les formes institutionnelles qu'elles prennent désormais les unes et les autres ? Quelle est et devrait être la place des droits internationaux régionaux issus des différentes régions du monde au sein des procédures d'adoption et d'interprétation du droit international universel ? Comment l'universalité des droits de l'Homme peut-elle et doit-elle se réconcilier avec la coexistence de différents systèmes régionaux (en l'occurrence, européen, interaméricain, africain et arabe) de protection de ces mêmes droits et les interprétations parfois différentes que leurs cours respectives en donnent ? Plus généralement, comment comprendre les termes « universalisme » et « régionalisme » en droit international et leurs rapports ? Quelles formes institutionnelles le droit international, prisonnier de la structure binaire « État-organisation internationale », donne-t-il aux régions et peut-il mieux faire pour assurer la légitimité politique du droit qui en est issu ? Comment articuler à l'avenir ces nombreuses organisations internationales régionales aux États, entre elles et aux organisations internationales universelles ? En tant qu'Européens, pouvons-nous encore tolérer l'exceptionnalisme européen en droit international et le positionnement officiel de l'UE en tant qu'ordre juridique et institutionnel « autonome » et « nouveau », et quelle devrait aujourd'hui être la place de l'UE parmi les organisations internationales régionales si elle ne doit être ni sui generis ni un modèle pour les autres ?

Ces questions et bien d'autres encore nous occuperont dans ce cours consacré au droit international des régions et au monde post-impérial qu'il pourrait (enfin) contribuer à instituer. Certaines d'entre elles seront approfondies dans le cadre du séminaire.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Conférence - Slim Laghmani - Y a-t-il une exception islamique en matière de droit international ?

Slim Laghmani

Professeur émérite en droit, université de Carthage

Slim Laghmani est invité par l'assemblée du Collège de France sur proposition de la Pr Samantha Besson.

Résumé

Y a-t-il en matière de droit international une exception musulmane ? Nous tenterons dans ce cours de montrer que non. Le droit des gens en Islam n'est pas un droit positif, pas plus que ne l'est le jus gentium romain. Ce n'est donc pas à l'aune du droit international contemporain que l'on doit le juger. Le droit des gens musulman, que l'on nommait « siyar » (règles de comportement des musulmans avec les non musulmans), pour être intelligible, doit être rapproché des corpus juridiques qui avaient cours durant l'Antiquité et le Moyen Âge.

Dans son contenu normatif, le droit des gens musulman a été beaucoup plus déterminé par le cadre historico-politique dans lequel il a été développé et codifié, l'empire, que par la foi musulmane. Sa forme, sa rationalité interne et son fondement ont été, eux, déterminés par une lecture, une interprétation volontariste de l'Islam qui a été érigée en orthodoxie, un autre fait d'histoire donc.

La particularité du droit des gens musulman tient à ce que ce contenu normatif, cette rationalité interne et ce fondement ont été sacralisés et de ce fait figés et que cette historicité a été en quelque sorte refoulée de sorte que le commun des musulmans attribue au divin ce qui a été un fait humain.

Slim Laghmani

Slim Laghmani est né à Tunis en novembre 1957. Il est professeur retraité de l'université de Carthage. Il y a enseigné le droit international, la philosophie du droit, les droits de l'homme et le droit constitutionnel comparé. Il a dirigé de 2001 à 2013 le Laboratoire de recherche « Droit de l'Union européenne et relations Maghreb-Europe ».

Il est l'auteur, notamment, des Éléments d'histoire de la philosophie du droit, (t. I : La nature, la Révélation et le Droit, Tunis, 1993 ; t. II : La modernité, l'État et le Droit, Tunis, 1999). Il a publié en commun avec Ali Mezghani, Écrits sur le Droit et la Modernité, (Tunis, 1994, en langue arabe). Il est également l'auteur d'une Histoire du droit des gens publiée chez Pedone (Paris) en 2004, d'un opuscule intitulé Islam, le pensable et le possible publié par les éditions le Fennec à Casablanca en 2005. Il a codirigé depuis 1994, avec Rafâa Ben Achour, la collection Rencontres internationales de la Faculté des sciences juridiques, politiques et sociales de Tunis, huit volumes ont été publiés par les éditions Pedone et a contribué au Traité international de droit constitutionnel (trois volumes, Paris, Dalloz, Traités Dalloz, 2012).

Il a été membre du Comité des experts au sein de la Haute Instance de réalisation des objectifs de la révolution, de la réforme politique et de la transition démocratique, président de la sous-commission des libertés publiques. Il est président de l'Association tunisienne de droit constitutionnel et membre du Conseil scientifique de l'Académie internationale de droit constitutionnel. Il a été membre de la Commission des libertés individuelles et de l'égalité.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Séminaire - Mathias Forteau : Droits régionaux et régionalisme dans les travaux de la Commission du droit international des Nations unies

Mathias Forteau

Université Paris Nanterre, membre de la Commission du droit international des Nations unies

Résumé

Alors même que les auteurs de la Charte des Nations unies étaient animés d'une certaine défiance à l'égard des organismes régionaux et des menaces qu'ils pouvaient faire peser sur l'avènement d'un nouveau droit international pleinement universel, le statut de la Commission du droit international des Nations unies, qui a été chargée depuis 1947 du développement progressif et de la codification du droit international, accorde une place significative au régionalisme. Et ce, de deux manières : d'abord, au titre de la composition de la Commission (qui, selon son statut, doit assurer « dans l'ensemble, la représentation des grandes formes de civilisation et des principaux systèmes juridiques du monde » (article 8)) ; et, ensuite, sur le plan de ses méthodes de travail, puisque la Commission est en particulier invitée à consulter toute organisation dont les travaux seraient utiles aux siens, étant précisé que « l'utilité de consultations entre la Commission et les organes intergouvernementaux, tels que ceux de l'Union panaméricaine, dont la tâche est la codification du droit international, est reconnue » (article 26 du statut). Depuis sa création, la Commission a régulièrement consulté et coopéré avec de tels organismes régionaux. Par ailleurs, la substance même de ses travaux témoigne d'une attention de plus en plus marquée aux droits régionaux et à leurs éventuelles spécificités. La présente intervention s'efforcera d'évaluer quelle place occupent aujourd'hui les droits régionaux (et plus largement le régionalisme) dans les travaux de la Commission du droit international des Nations unies. Une telle évaluation permettra par ricochet de contribuer à la réflexion relative aux rapports qui se nouent – ou se dénouent – dans le monde contemporain entre le droit international général et les droits régionaux.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

02 - Le droit international des régions : Adopter du droit international universel dans un plurivers de civilisations : le rôle de la concertation intra- et inter-régionale

Prenant acte des nombreux processus de régionalisation du droit international et, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, de leur généralisation et de leur approfondissement, et notamment de la multiplication des organisations internationales régionales dans toutes les régions du monde et de leur prise croissante sur l'ordre juridique et institutionnel international, le cours de cette année pose la question de ce que les régions font au droit international et de ce que le droit international fait aux régions.

Comment est-ce qu'un droit international à l'origine régional, car issu principalement du droit public européen, en est venu à valoir universellement et comment assurer sa légitimité universelle dans ces conditions ? Comment cela se traduit-il dans les concepts de « région », « droit régional » et « organisation régionale » en et du droit international ? Quels sont les rapports entre « régions » et « civilisations » en droit international et entre les formes institutionnelles qu'elles prennent désormais les unes et les autres ? Quelle est et devrait être la place des droits internationaux régionaux issus des différentes régions du monde au sein des procédures d'adoption et d'interprétation du droit international universel ? Comment l'universalité des droits de l'Homme peut-elle et doit-elle se réconcilier avec la coexistence de différents systèmes régionaux (en l'occurrence, européen, interaméricain, africain et arabe) de protection de ces mêmes droits et les interprétations parfois différentes que leurs cours respectives en donnent ? Plus généralement, comment comprendre les termes « universalisme » et « régionalisme » en droit international et leurs rapports ? Quelles formes institutionnelles le droit international, prisonnier de la structure binaire « État-organisation internationale », donne-t-il aux régions et peut-il mieux faire pour assurer la légitimité politique du droit qui en est issu ? Comment articuler à l'avenir ces nombreuses organisations internationales régionales aux États, entre elles et aux organisations internationales universelles ? En tant qu'Européens, pouvons-nous encore tolérer l'exceptionnalisme européen en droit international et le positionnement officiel de l'UE en tant qu'ordre juridique et institutionnel « autonome » et « nouveau », et quelle devrait aujourd'hui être la place de l'UE parmi les organisations internationales régionales si elle ne doit être ni sui generis ni un modèle pour les autres ?

Ces questions et bien d'autres encore nous occuperont dans ce cours consacré au droit international des régions et au monde post-impérial qu'il pourrait (enfin) contribuer à instituer. Certaines d'entre elles seront approfondies dans le cadre du séminaire.

Samantha Besson

Droit international des institutions

Collège de France

Année 2024-2025

Séminaire - Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen : Les approches régionales face au délitement démocratique. Vers un ius commune régional de défense d'un idéal universel ?

Intervenant(s) :

Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

Résumé

L'intervention du 6 mars 2025 a pour objet d'appréhender un des grands défis contemporains : le défi démocratique. Alors qu'il y a encore une quinzaine d'années, on pensait que le « modèle » démocratique était sinon implanté partout, à tout le moins, désiré par tous, la réalité démontre qu'il n'est plus plébiscité dans le monde ; pire, qu'il est abîmé à dessein par des régimes qui revendiquent une nouvelle approche de gouvernance, l'« illibéralisme ». Ce phénomène affecte le monde dans son ensemble et notamment les trois continents, que sont l'Afrique, l'Amérique latine et l'Europe. Dans ce contexte, l'objet de la conférence analysera la manière dont les trois Cours régionales des droits de l'homme font face à ce délitement démocratique. De quels ressorts juridiques disposent-elles pour défendre un idéal battu en brèche ? Sont-elles à l'unisson dans cette défense des fondamentaux démocratiques ? Ces interrogations guideront l'intervention afin de déterminer, in fine, si des principes communs se dégagent de la jurisprudence des 3 Cours, en dépit de la variété de contextes historiques, sociologiques, juridiques dans lesquels elles évoluent.