Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

POLICY AND PRACTICE REVIEWS article

Front. Educ.

Sec. Higher Education

This article is part of the Research TopicAcademic Freedom: Embracing Diverse VoicesView all 8 articles

Are Committees on Respect for International Law within universities a new threat to academic freedom?

Provisionally accepted
  • Faculty of Medicine, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Following the escalation of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, pro-Palestinian activists occupied universities in the United States, Canada, and Europe, demanding that academic authorities cut ties with Israeli institutions. This article examines the response of Belgian universities to these mobilizations. At first, several institutions rejected calls for an academic boycott and reaffirmed their commitment to institutional neutrality, emphasizing the importance of protecting academic freedom. Their actions were limited to reviewing whether collaborations with Israeli universities posed risks of harmful applications, particularly in the context of dual-use research. In contrast, the Ghent University and the Université Libre de Bruxelles quickly declared that a boycott was a necessity in light of Israel’s violations of international law and human rights. Both established Committees on Respect for International Law (CRIL) to reassess partnerships with foreign institutions. This stance soon became dominant within Belgian higher education. Through joint declarations, all Belgian universities endorsed an academic boycott and urged the European Union to suspend agreements with Israel. Such a position marks a clear departure from traditional academic norms. By abandoning institutional neutrality, universities positioned themselves as political actors, a shift that may reshape how both the public and policymakers perceive academic expertise, while also exposing institutions to political targeting. Moreover, by presenting the academic boycott as a moral and legal obligation, universities risk legitimizing the idea that scholarly communities can be held collectively responsible for state actions. If generalized across Europe, these practices could endanger academic freedom and normalize academic boycotts as a form of collective punishment.

Keywords: Academic freedom, institutional neutrality, institutional restraint, dual useregulation, Academic boycott, Committees on Respect for International Law

Received: 24 Apr 2025; Accepted: 27 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Muraille. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Eric Muraille, emuraille@hotmail.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.