Pierre Walckiers

his article-based thesis examines the strategic use of scientific arguments in political and legal spheres. It focuses on debates surrounding Digital Sequence Information (DSI) within the framework of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and other Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) instruments. Due to advances in sequencing technologies, genetic data are increasingly used alongside, or in place of, physical genetic resources for research and industrial purposes. This use contributes to the bypassing of existing ABS obligations, without consensus on whether such uses of DSI fall within the scope of ABS instruments. Within this hybrid context, characterized by concerns over biopiracy, gene editing, and the patenting of genetic resources, the thesis analyzes how scientific arguments are mobilized in these debates. It examines the epistocratic use of science by states in negotiations on DSI, particularly regarding the integration of DSI into ABS mechanisms and in relation to the definitions of “genetic resources” and “genetic material.” It also explores how science is used to frame the ontological questions raised by DSI, including the determination of their terminology, scope, and the types of knowledge considered legitimate, thereby contributing to epistemic injustices toward Indigenous knowledge systems. The thesis then investigates how scientific perspectives shape the interpretation of international law by analyzing the ontological assumptions underlying a conception of “modern science” presented as objective and universal. Situated at the intersection of international law, philosophy of law, philosophy of science, and posthuman approaches, this thesis examines how this “modern science,” drawing on a dualistic framework, produces normative “ontological cuts” between physical plants and their immaterial components, and between nature and culture. Finally, the thesis advances a relational and cosmopolitical approach to international law. It argues that international law should not be interpreted solely through supposedly universal, Western, and anthropocentric frameworks, but can instead be understood as a space of ontological diplomacy, open to reinterpretation in light of the ontological and epistemological claims at stake within these human–seed relationships.

Critique d’une approche naturaliste et dualiste dans le droit de l’environnement, cette contribution explore une approche relationnelle pour qualifier et protéger par le droit les liens entre humains et non-humains. L’approche est présentée comme un outil épistémique et une méthode juridique, pouvant être reprise dans des situations concrètes telles que les relations animistes avec les communautés autochtones ou les luttes des collectifs zadistes. Le prisme relationnel est ensuite appliqué à la dématérialisation des semences dans le droit international de l’agrobiodiversité. Soucieux d’une ouverture du droit international à une diplomatie ontologique, le geste relationnel est avancé pour lutter contre les ruptures causées par la dématérialisation, effaçant savoirs traditionnels et relations spirituelles, sociales et culturelles avec les semences.

La distinction classique entre objet et sujet de droit, ou entre chose et personne, est remise en question face aux problématiques « hybrides », telles que celles soulevées par les systèmes d’intelligence artificielle. Cet article propose d’explorer les mutations conceptuelles que ces technologies imposent au cadre juridique, en mobilisant le concept de « statut juridique » entendu comme l’ensemble des normes applicables à une entité. La première partie dresse une cartographie critique des approches théoriques et méthodologiques autour des métamorphoses du sujet et de l’objet de droit, par quelques explorations historiques, anthropologiques et, transversalement, via les théories posthumaines et relationnelles, venant complexifier l’espace conceptuel. La deuxième partie prolonge cette réflexion à partir des théories relationnelles qui abordent les relations sociales avec ces entités en amont de leurs statuts juridiques. Enfin, la dernière partie examine un modèle graduel d’attribution de statuts juridiques aux systèmes d’intelligence artificielle tenant compte de ces relations, mais aussi de leurs caractéristiques saillantes, ainsi que des objectifs socialement bénéfiques d’une telle attribution, et permettant de repenser les catégories juridiques au-delà de la stricte opposition entre sujet et objet.

This article analyzes the European Commission’s justification of legislation through a modern dualistic framework, contrasting scientific (objective) and political (subjective) narratives: the political narrative, reflecting the will of the people, and the scientific narrative, grounded in technical harmonization, evidence, and data. The research focuses on the uses and strategic shifts in the Commission’s justifications, particularly the transition from scientific to political narratives. Despite claims of a "more political" Commission, as articulated in Juncker’s State of the Union addresses, we hypothesize that the Commission effectively operates within both narratives and strategically shifts its narrative register to enhance legitimacy. Our approach is interdisciplinary, combining EU law in context, legal philosophy, political science, and formal legislative motivation, alongside discursive analysis methods (Narrative Policy Framework). By analyzing various agrifood cases in which the Commission communicates across different forums (COFE, EC-Biotech and EC-Hormone litigation), with a particular focus on the proposal for a regulation on new genomic techniques (NGT), this article concludes that the Commission strategically utilizes both scientific and political narratives in a complementary manner, depending on the subject matter and the institutions involved.

Traitant des discours qui accompagnent la transformation de l’agriculture, de ses révolutions à la transition durable, cet article analyse leur justification politique à travers un narratif technoscientifique. Fondé sur un modèle dualiste et hétéronome, ce narratif est critiqué pour son caractère dépolitisant, présentant les projets agricoles comme neutres, objectifs et universels, ainsi que pour son approche réductionniste des sciences (cartésienne), imposant une ontologie occidentale et méprisant d’autres ontologies, savoirs et relations au monde agricole. Dans ce contexte, le présent article propose d’explorer une approche relationnelle de la politique. Cette approche vise à nous émanciper de ces narratifs technoscientifiques dualistes et à valoriser l’autonomie des communautés ainsi que la légitimité de leurs ontologies, savoirs et relations aux non-humains. L’approche relationnelle s’inspire de la philosophie politique de Bruno Latour, d’Isabelle Stengers et plus particulièrement de Cornélius Castoriadis, notamment sa distinction entre technè et praxis et l’importance des imaginaires politiques. Enfin, l’article étaye cette approche relationnelle par des exemples concrets sur le plan européen, notamment la gestion des semences et les zones à défendre (ZAD), qui illustrent une repolitisation des enjeux agricoles et l’intégration d’éléments holistiques et relationnels dans l’action politique.

En examinant le rôle des discours et arguments scientifiques en droit, cette contribution explore comment les courants du droit naturel et du positivisme juridique y réagissent, et postule l’existence d’un dualisme ontologique qui persiste dans ces deux approches. Ce dualisme sépare le domaine des faits « objectifs » (incluant la « nature » et la « vérité scientifique ») du domaine des valeurs, du subjectif, de la politique et du droit. Dans cet espace dualiste, les discours scientifiques peuvent revendiquer une neutralité et objectivité, parfois avec une dimension normative. En effet, le droit naturel prête à ces discours une dimension normative, tout comme le positivisme sociologique qui voit dans le fait social une source de normativité. En revanche, le positivisme juridique isole le droit « pur » des éléments externes et réaffirme la séparation entre faits et valeurs, mais renforce paradoxalement le caractère « indiscutable » des éléments extérieurs. Cet article conclut que le droit naturel et le positivisme juridique sont mal équipés pour contrer les arguments épistocratiques, et souligne la nécessité d’approches plus critiques et interdisciplinaires du droit.

This article examines the use of scientific arguments in negotiations on the status of Digital Sequence Information (DSI), focusing on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework (PIP). DSI is a placeholder term used in negotiations on the dematerialization of genetic resources: the ability to sequence “physical” genetic resources and use this “intangible” information, which radically changes research practices. The CBD (among other instruments) establishes rules for Access to the Genetic Resource and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from their utilization (ABS). This applies to “physical” genetic resources, but it is not clear for DSI. Indeed, different legal interpretations and political narrative are conflicting over the integration of DSI into these legal frameworks. This article explores how science is used in these negotiations, particularly in its rhetorical and epistocratic dimensions. The methodology combines an interdisciplinary approach (legal technique, philosophy of law and science) and a comparative discourse analysis: on the terminology; the inclusion of DSI in the definition of genetic material; and the inclusion of DSI in ABS systems. While scientific arguments play a crucial role in this technical issue, this article shows that scientific arguments can be used to support political positions (under the guise of objectivity and neutrality), and that this use of scientific arguments is not consistent, even contradictory (between PIP and CBD/ITPGRFA).

The aim of this master’s thesis is to analyse and highlight the interaction between science, politics and law. More precisely, our research question concerns the use of scientific arguments in social spheres (notably in politics and law) instead of legal or political arguments. In fact, we want to raise the way in which certain actors invoke scientific arguments to impose "objective" elements of fact in debate and, in this way, refrain from politically and "subjectively" discussing these same elements (or, at least, their social consequences). This Master’s thesis will adopt an interdisciplinary theoretical framework (chapter 1) mobilising philosophy of science, philosophy of law, sociology of law, legal technique and analytical theories. Then, we will apply it to a case study: the European regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) after the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruling of 25 July 2015 (chapter 2). The first chapter will provide theoretical elements to rethink the interaction between science, politics and law. The first section will propose a 'state of the art’ of the philosophical literature on the relationship between science (as a regime of truth) and politics. This master’s thesis will assess a truth under construction rather than a transcendental truth. Section 2 anticipates authoritarian claims based on science by considering the relationship science can have with power (Foucault). A solid review of philosophical, sociological and legal literature highlights the risks of giving decision-making power to an all-powerful science. Notably, the use of science to justify discriminatory policies is emphasised as these policies could not be challenged because, at the time, it was considered an objective scientific truth. Finally, section 3 offers a critique of the narratives of neutral and objective science, through the approach of science in action. This sociological approach presented all the doubts and subjectivity of science in action. The second chapter will propose a case study to illustrate the theoretical framework. We have chosen GMOs because they constitute a hybrid 'event', marked by scientific controversies, and with major socio-economic implications. The legal framework of GMOs in the European Union will be presented in the first section. In addition, the legal status of new breeding techniques (NBTs) will be examined. The second section will analyse the ruling of the European Court of Justice which made NBTs subject to GMO regulation. Finally, the third section will propose a reflection on the philosophy of law on the modes of existence of scientific, legal and political disciplines.