In this article, we examine a tension within university committees tasked with evaluating international scientific collaborations. On the one hand, universities have a mission to safeguard academic freedom and to promote the development of international scientific cooperation. On the other hand, these freedoms may come into conflict with institutional responsibility, both with respect to compliance with international and humanitarian law and ethical and political standards, as well as the economic or reputational interests of the University. How can actors manage this tension, as well as the inescapable “grey area” between these different types of collaboration?

The University guarantees the material, security, ethical and legal conditions within which research and teaching are developed. In this respect, two principles are fundamental to the proper functioning of science: academic freedom and international scientific collaboration. At the international level, academic freedom is guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as by Article 13 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The freedom to seek, produce, and disseminate knowledge without restriction is also upheld by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The duty to strengthen international collaboration in scientific matters is explicitly addressed in Article 15 of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In Belgium, academic freedom, although not formally enshrined in the Constitution, is recognised through the case law of the Constitutional Court. These principles are essential in a context marked by growing politicization and distrust toward science. The economic attacks against universities carried out by the Trump administration, motivated by an ideological hostility toward the academic world, find their echo in Europe, as shown notably in Belgium, by the statements of the President of one of the main “democratic” parties, G-L Boucher, against the Free University of Bruxelles. As a result, proposals to formally enshrine academic freedom in the Constitution have been put forward by academics in Belgium and France.

How, then, should one understand the recommendation of the Council of the EU of 23 May 2024, which calls for promoting international cooperation “as open as possible” yet “as closed as necessary”? The tensions linked to various global conflicts, combined with the intensification of international interdependencies, lead universities to deepen their reflection on their responsibilities as well as on the impact of their scientific collaborations. These impacts may relate to national security, particularly when research involves a partner identified as presenting a risk of industrial or military espionage, or breaches of personal data. The same applies where the research conducted is liable to contravene international law or to infringe human rights.

Within this framework, committees for the evaluation of international scientific partnerships in Liège’s University are tasked with raising awareness within the academic community and to issue opinions to the authorities (who remain sovereign in their decisions) regarding the ethical and legal responsibilities arising from envisaged collaborations. The committees adopt a precautionary approach aimed at reconciling, on the one hand, academic freedom and scientific progress, and, on the other hand, respect for international law and human rights. This balance rests on three essential safeguards.

First, only institutional partnerships are examined, insofar as they formally engage the responsibility and reputation of the university. This includes all collaborations governed by an agreement or contract (staff appointments, transfer of intellectual property, etc.). However, interindividual collaborations, which fall fully within the scope of academic freedom, are not subject to review (co-authoring of an article, participation in a doctoral jury or in a conference, etc.), although it can occasionally happen that faculty members request an opinion from the evaluation committee.

Second, the committees do not base their analyses on arbitrary considerations. Although these norms are not binding on higher education institutions, the examination of general international law, international humanitarian and criminal law, and more broadly, human rights constitute the normative compass guiding the institution’s position in matters of international cooperation.

Finally, the committees do not adopt any specific political or ideological position and follow the pluralist guiding line that characterises, in the instance of Liège, a public University. This “institutional restraint” is an essential principle and a condition of academic freedom: it is by limiting institutional freedom of expression that pluralism of expression within the institution can be guaranteed

The example of collaborations with Israeli universities illustrates the coherence of this approach. Following the Israeli military response in Gaza to the attacks of 7 October 2023, significant student mobilizations called upon the university to adopt a general boycott of Israeli universities.  Sensitive to the ethical grounds underlying this mobilisation, yet opposed to any generalised boycott, the University of Liège conducted a case-by-case assessment based on the risks of serious violations of international and humanitarian law. A moratorium was established on certain institutional collaborations involving partners linked to the Israeli military effort. This decision follows the precautionary logic and does not extend to individual collaborations, which fall within the scope of academic freedom. The moratorium was not adopted in support of a particular political side, but in the name of fundamental humanitarian values and with the intention of preventing the institution from being associated with potential serious violations of international law such as war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The same precautionary logic is observed in other types of collaborations, particularly with partners notoriously active in the military field.