The biodiversity crisis isn't just destroying nature: it's also threatening our societies, our well-being and our survival. Based on the scientific assessments and findings of the IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), this Francqui Chair will explore our toxic relationship with nature, the global failure to protect it, and the multiple values of living things.

Speaker: Sander Jacobs, Senior Researcher at INBO (Institute for Nature and Forestry), Nature & Society research group, Coordinator of the Urban Nature research program and Visiting Professor at Ghent University.

19/11/2025 - Inaugural lecture | Biodiversity crisis: causes, consequences, and how (not) to get out of it.

This Francqui Chair offers a fresh look at the advances but also the tensions that today characterize the way the law organizes society's relationship with the environment. If the ambition to protect the environment has indeed become a legal issue, how are its essential mainsprings evolving, whether in climate matters, in the relationship to human health, or in the status accorded to nature?

The organization of this Chair is fully integrated into the Law School's Fil Rouge 2025-2026 dedicated to this substratum essential to life that is the environment, nature, our earth: "Réenchanter la terre".

Orator: Delphine Misonne, Senior Research Fellow FNRS, Professor at UCLouvain, Director of CEDRE and member of the Royal Academy of Belgium.

27/11/2025 - Inaugural Lesson I Protecting the environment beyond politics

The Digital Sessions are an initiative launched by the NaDI, the digital research institute at UNamur. The latter brings together researchers from the Faculties of law, informatics and EMCP.

To stimulate interdisciplinary collaboration, NaDI has launched a call for projects. One of the selected projects? Les Séances du Numérique, an original format in which fiction becomes the starting point for debate. Each meeting begins with a film screening, followed by an interdisciplinary conference on a digital-related social issue.

The ambition of these sessions is simple: to educate about digital issues through fiction, and to confront a variety of viewpoints.

This format extends the experience of the podcast Pop-Code already hosted by Anthony Simonofski and Benoît Vanderose, but with an added dimension: interdisciplinarity and direct exchange with the audience. After the film, everyone can question the experts and enrich the reflection.

Digital technology will be at the heart of future screenings, with a dynamic that is both collaborative and rooted in current affairs:

1. Fostering collaboration between several NaDI centers to bring disciplines into dialogue (as was the case at the first session with CRIDS and PReCISE).
2. Bouncing off themes linked to current events to guarantee the relevance of exchanges.

Four sessions will be offered per year, open to all, with one priority: reaching out to citizens. The films are there to give the event a cultural and scientific outreach.

Eventually, the team would like to diversify its formats: screenings in cinemas like Caméo, broadcasting series, even playconferences where we play a video game during the debate. The idea: to use fiction in all its forms to kick-start discussion.

• Fanny Barnabé, lecturer at CRIDS / NaDI
• Anne-Sophie Collard, professor at the EMCP Faculty
• Anthony Simonofski, professor at the EMCP Faculty
• Benoît Vanderose, professor at the Computer Science Faculty

In collaboration with the Knowledge Confluence and the Administration de la communication

Several projects are already aiming to entrust part of the legislative work to artificial intelligence (AI). While for the time being, these are mainly tools for transcribing parliamentary debates, translating or analyzing archives, drafting tools or legislative texts are also being considered. The use of AI may seem interesting: it can improve readability or facilitate standardization. But, depending on how it is used, it may not spontaneously respect the fundamental principles of the legislative process, such as legality, proportionality or equality. These requirements, established by the Constitutional Court, are the subject of numerous case law decisions. As part of a doctoral thesis, Aline Nardi, is sifting through them to see whether the use of AI is possible in legislative processes.

His finding? "For csome more critical tasks, which go beyond simple editing, problems arise." In particular, she points to the opacity of the reasoning, since "it is difficult to trace why the AI suggests such and such a lead from the query submitted to it". Yet, in a state governed by the rule of law, the legislative process must be transparent and comprehensible if it is to be challenged by parliamentarians and citizens.

There are also issues of democratic legitimacy: "The company that develops the system used by parliamentary assemblies can influence decisions that are extremely important for a nation. Is a parliamentarian still useful if he or she is only there to ratify decisions made by a machine?" asks the jurist.

On the citizens' side, AI has been transforming election campaigns for some years now. Micro-targeting, automated disinformation, manipulation of emotions via social networks: these are all formidable tools that can skew public debate. The 2016 US presidential campaign clearly illustrates this problem."Cambridge Analytica, for example, targeted and influenced undecided voters whose positions could be tilted in Donald Trump's favor. Around 20 million undecided voters thus received tailored messages, such as memes, videos, blog posts in favor of Trump", recalls Aline Nardi. Combined with social networks, AI therefore calls into question the right of voters to form an opinion based on pluralist and reliable information.

More recently, the Romanian Constitutional Court invalidated the 2024 presidential election on the grounds of misuse of AI and lack of transparency in digital campaigns. "This affected the freely expressed nature of the citizens' vote and in particular their right to be properly informed, explains Aline Nardi.

The European Union is trying to take action against these abuses. Several regulations have been put in place. They aim to frame digital technologies and limit their harmful effects on the information space, particularly during electoral processes. These regulations include the Digital Services Act (DSA), the AI Regulation and the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising Regulation (TTPA). These regulations have prompted Google, and more recently Meta, to stop allowing political, electoral and social issue advertising in the European Union.

"However, questions remain as to the applicability, concrete implementation and effectiveness of certain standards stemming from bodies of digital law", alerts Aline Nardi, who calls for "sortir de ce flou juridique".

Democracy is by no means a fixed concept. It is the subject of debate, especially today. Louis Carré, Director of the Department of Philosophy and member of the Espace philosophique de Namur (Institut ESPHIN), proposes a three-dimensional definition: a political regime, a state of law and a way of forming society.

"Etymologically, democracy is a political regime that consists in giving power to the people," he reminds us. "Our Western democracies today are based on the idea that the people are sovereign, without governing directly. From this arises a tension between ideal democracy and real democracy."Vincent Jacquet, professor in the Department of Social, Political and Communication Sciences and president of the Transitions Institute supports the point: "Democracy is an ideal of citizen self-government, but it is in tension with more centralizing, authoritarian logics. [...] Our political systems are crisscrossed by these different tensions, with both authoritarian logics increasingly present, including in our own country, and logics of participation that are sometimes accompanied by a great deal of hope and disappointment too."

The second pillar according to Louis Carré: the rule of law. Democracy guarantees the fundamental rights of all citizens through the constitution. But here again, beware of paradoxes: "One could indeed imagine laws passed by a majority of representatives or by a referendum, but which contravene fundamental rights" the philosopher stresses. Democracy cannot therefore be summed up by the majority principle alone.

Finally, democracy is also a way of forming society. It is based on real pluralism: diversity of opinions, beliefs and values. "This presupposes the existence of a relatively autonomous public space in the face of the power in place, which at times challenges the decisions taken by the governments that have been elected,"insists Louis Carré.

In this context, what is the university's responsibility? Louis Carré begins by reminding us of a simple fact: a large proportion of our elected representatives have passed through university benches. But its teaching mission doesn't stop there. "It's about training enlightened citizens, not just rulers. Universities must offer quality higher education, open to as many people as possible", he asserts.

"Democracy does indeed presuppose citizens capable of debating, reflecting, problematizing issues", adds Sephora Boucenna, Dean of the Faculty of Education and Training Sciences and member of UNamur's Institut de Recherches en Didactiques et Éducation (IRDENA). It's all about training reflective minds, capable of questioning their times.

Universities also train those who, tomorrow, will educate future generations: teachers. And here again, democracy is at stake.

In addition to teaching, universities also have a research and social service mission. It produces knowledge that can enlighten public policy, but also question it. This critical function presupposes real independence from politics. "To analyze democratic mechanisms with lucidity, including those that governments put in place, the university must retain its freedom of research and speech," insists Vincent Jacquet.

This critical function of the university presupposes strong independence. In Belgium, however, university funding is largely a matter for the political authorities. "Celane must not mean being placed under tutelage", warns Louis Carré. "Conducting critical research that doesn't satisfy short-term sponsors requires independence, including in terms of resources. We need a large number of researchers who can analyze different types of dynamics. The more we cut research funding, as is the case today, the fewer researchers we'll have and therefore the less capacity for independent analysis and diversity of perspectives, insists Vincent Jacquet.

The "Université en colère" movement, recently launched within the universities of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, intends to denounce the effects of definancement. Its representatives are calling for "guarantee the conditions for the development of an open, independent, quality university accessible to the greatest number. Faced with the social, economic and political challenges of our time, and because other choices for society, and therefore budgets, are possible, it is more essential than ever to strengthen the institutions and players at the heart of knowledge production."

Democracy is therefore not limited to elections or institutions. It is based on collective vigilance, carried by citizens, knowledge... and the places where this knowledge is built. In this respect, universities are an essential link in the chain of democratic vitality. Provided it remains independent, accessible and open to society.

"Democracy is not just a matter of institutions. It's about citizens who bring it to life and organize themselves to assert their perspectives at different times", insists Vincent Jacquet. A clear invitation not to remain a spectator, but to participate, with lucidity and exigency, in the construction of a common democratic future.