The 13th of 2026 | AURDIP
As if nothing had happened, the government published a call for applications for the co-presidency of the Franco-Israeli High Council for Science and Technology (HCST). In a context of genocide, and contrary to the injunctions of the International Court of Justice, France continues its scientific and technological cooperation with Israel. AURDIP wrote to the relevant ministers and university presidents to denounce this complicity.
***
Mr Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs
Mr Minister of Higher Education, Research and Space
Dear Ministers,
The Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Space have published a call for applications for the renewal of the French co-presidency of the Franco-Israeli High Council for Science and Technology (HCST), with a deadline of May 18, 2026.
This appeal cannot be considered as a simple administrative procedure. The HCST is presented by your ministries as a body placed under the authority of the competent French and Israeli ministries, responsible for “guiding, piloting and coordinating all scientific and technological cooperation between France and Israel. It is also involved in the management of bilateral research programs, including the Hubert Curien Partnership (PHC) “Maïmonides”.
In the current context, the ordinary pursuit of such institutional cooperation calls for an urgent reassessment with regard to France’s international obligations. Indeed, the appeal published by your ministries does not include any mention of an evaluation with regard to international humanitarian law, the Genocide Convention, the orders of the ICJ, all considerations recalled in the appendix to this letter.
The call also does not mention the risks linked to military, security, police or dual-use uses of certain scientific and technological cooperation. This omission is all the more worrying since the PHC Maïmonides 2027, supervised by the HCST, relates in particular to artificial intelligence, health and materials, that “companies can participate in the project, as long as they are associated with an academic partner”, and that its Evaluation criteria include “potential applicability”, defined as “the practical applicability of the expected research results”. The existence of a possible examination under the “Protection of the scientific and technical potential of the nation” also confirms that these cooperations can present a particular sensitivity. In a context of war, occupation, colonization and massive violations of international law, these areas cannot be considered politically or legally neutral.
The point here is not to contest any individual scientific relationship with Israeli researchers, but to question structured interstate cooperation, placed under ministerial authority, publicly funded and oriented towards the development of bilateral scientific and technological programs. in the absence of such an assessment, your ministries, as well as the person called upon to exercise the French co-chairmanship of the HCST, would expose themselves to a risk of being called into question with regard to the obligations of prevention, non-recognition and non-assistance which are imposed on France.
As such, it is up to the French authorities to demonstrate that they have carried out a sufficient, transparent and verifiable assessment.
We therefore ask you:
1. to suspend or postpone the call for applications for the French co-presidency of the HCST;
2. to make public the legal assessment carried out by your ministries on the compatibility of this cooperation with France’s international obligations, in particular with regard to the Genocide Convention, the orders of the ICJ, the advisory opinion of the ICJ of July 19, 2024 and resolution ES-10/24 of the UNGA (see the annex to this letter);
3. to carry out an audit of ongoing or recently funded Franco-Israeli scientific and technological cooperation, in particular within the framework of the HCST and the PHC Maïmonides program;
4. to explicitly exclude from any public cooperation institutions, companies, laboratories or programs contributing directly or indirectly to military, security, surveillance, population control, colonization or occupation capabilities;
5. to publish a framework for vigilance and prior evaluation applicable to all bilateral scientific and technological cooperation when these concern a State involved in serious violations of international law.
In the absence of such guarantees, the ordinary renewal of the French co-presidency of the HCST would appear as an institutional normalization of scientific and technological cooperation with the State of Israel, even though the situation on the contrary requires caution, transparency, preventive suspension and public control. International scientific cooperation cannot be invoked as an area of exception to international law. It involves the public institutions which finance, structure and legitimize it.
We therefore ask you to immediately open a public reassessment of Franco-Israeli scientific and technological cooperation and, pending this, to suspend this appeal.
Please believe, Gentlemen Ministers, in the expression of our high consideration
Association of Academics for Respect for International Law in Palestine (AURDIP)
The President
Ivar Ekeland
Former President of the University of Paris-Dauphine
president@aurdip.fr
Annexe : rappel relevant provisions of international law
Since the order issued on January 26, 2024 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the caseApplication of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)then the additional orders of March 28 and May 24, 2024, third States cannot ignore the existence of a serious risk falling within the scope of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Court notably reminded Israel of its preventive obligations under this convention and ordered provisional measures intended to protect the rights of Palestinians in Gaza under it.
In addition to these precautionary measures, there is the advisory opinion rendered by the ICJ on July 19, 2024 on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court concludes in particular that the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, this illegality applying to the entirety of the territory occupied since 1967 (advisory opinion, §§ 261-262 and operative part, § 285, point 3). It is also of the opinion that all States have the obligation not to recognize as lawful the situation resulting from this unlawful presence and not to lend aid or assistance to its maintenance (advisory opinion, § 279 and operative part, § 285, point 7). The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) then adopted, on September 18, 2024, resolution ES-10/24, which welcomes this advisory opinion, demands that Israel immediately end its illicit presence in the Palestinian Territory occupied, and at the latest within a period of twelve months, and asks all States not to recognize as lawful the situation resulting from this presence, not to lend aid or assistance to its maintenance, and to take measures so that their authorities, nationals, companies and entities refrain from any act implying such recognition or assistance (A/RES/ES-10/24, §§ 1, 2, 4 (b)-c) and 5 (a)).
The obligation to prevent genocide, enshrined in Article I of the 1948 Convention, is not limited to the prohibition of directly committing genocide. According to the ICJ, “the obligation to prevent and the duty to act which is its corollary arise, for a State, at the moment when it is aware, or should normally be aware, of the existence of a serious risk of committing genocide” (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Serbie-et-Monténégro, judgment of February 26, 2007, § 431). The orders issued by the Court in 2024 in the caseSouth Africa v. IsraelToday make this requirement particularly concrete: third States cannot ignore the risk in question nor pursue sensitive institutional cooperation without prior assessment. This obligation also requires refraining from any measure likely to facilitate, directly or indirectly, the realization of such a risk.
