On May 13, 2026 | AURDIP
As if nothing had happened, the government has issued 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 International Court of Justice’s injunctions, France continues its scientific and technological cooperation with Israel. AURDIP has written to the relevant ministers and university presidents to denounce this complicity.
Dear Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs
Dear Minister of Higher Education, Research and Space
Esteemed 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 set for May 18, 2026.
This call cannot be regarded as a mere administrative procedure. The HCST is presented by your ministries as an authority under the French and Israeli competent ministries, charged with guiding, steering, and coordinating all scientific and technological cooperation between France and Israel. It also plays a role in steering bilateral research programs, including the Hubert Curien Partnership (PHC) “Maimonides”.
In the current context, the continued institutional cooperation calls for an urgent reassessment in light of France’s international obligations. Indeed, the call published by your ministries contains no mention of an evaluation in light of international humanitarian law, the Convention on Genocide, the ICJ’s ordinances, all of which are further detailed in the annex to this letter.
The call also fails to mention the risks associated with military, security, police, or dual-use applications of certain scientific and technological collaborations. This omission is particularly concerning as the PHC Maimonides 2027, supervised by the HCST, focuses on artificial intelligence, health, and materials, AND that “companies can participate in the project, as long as they are associated with an academic partner,” and its evaluation criteria includes the “potential applicability,” defined as “the practical applicability of the expected research results.” The possible review under the “Protection of the nation’s scientific and technical potential” also confirms that these collaborations may 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.
It is not about contesting any individual scientific relationship with Israeli researchers, but questioning a structured intergovernmental cooperation, placed under ministerial authority, publicly funded and geared towards the development of bilateral scientific and technological programs. In the absence of such an evaluation, your ministries, as well as the person called to hold the French co-presidency of the HCST, would be at risk of being questioned regarding the obligations of prevention, non-recognition, and non-assistance that France must adhere to.
In this regard, it is up to the French authorities to demonstrate that they have carried out a sufficient, transparent, and verifiable evaluation.
We therefore ask you to:
- Suspend or postpone the call for applications for the French co-presidency of the HCST;
- Publicize the legal assessment conducted by your ministries on the compatibility of this cooperation with France’s international obligations, notably in view of the Convention on Genocide, the ICJ’s ordinances, the advisory opinion of the ICJ of July 19, 2024, and UN General Assembly resolution ES-10/24 (see the annex to this letter);
- Conduct an audit of ongoing or recently funded Franco-Israeli scientific and technological collaborations, especially within the HCST and the PHC Maimonides program;
- Explicitly exclude from all public cooperation institutions, companies, laboratories, or programs contributing directly or indirectly to military, security, surveillance, population control, colonization, or occupation capacities;
- Publish a framework for vigilance and prior assessment applicable to all bilateral scientific and technological collaborations when they involve a state involved in serious violations of international law.
Without such guarantees, the routine 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, whereas caution, transparency, preventive suspension, and public control are required due to the current situation. International scientific cooperation cannot be invoked as an exception to international law. The public institutions funding, structuring, and legitimizing it are held accountable.
We therefore request an immediate public evaluation of Franco-Israeli scientific and technological cooperation and, pending this, to suspend this call.
Please believe, Honorable Ministers, in the expression of our highest consideration
Association of Academics for the Respect of International Law in Palestine (AURDIP)
The President
Ivar Ekeland
Former President of the University of Paris-Dauphine
Annex: Reminder of relevant provisions of international law
Since the order dated January 26, 2024, by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel),” and the additional orders of March 28 and May 24, 2024, third states cannot ignore the existence of a serious risk falling under the scope of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Court specifically reminded Israel of its prevention obligations under this convention and ordered conservatory measures to protect the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza under it.
In addition to these conservatory measures, 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, also emphasizes the illicit nature of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, extending back to 1967. The advisory opinion states that all states have an obligation not to recognize as lawful the situation resulting from this illicit presence and to refrain from aiding or assisting its maintenance. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) then adopted resolution ES-10/24 on September 18, 2024, welcoming this advisory opinion, demanding that Israel immediately cease its illicit presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and by no later than twelve months, urging all states not to recognize as lawful the situation arising from this presence, to refrain from aiding or assisting its maintenance, and to take steps to ensure that their authorities, nationals, companies, and entities abstain from any act involving such acknowledgment or assistance.
The obligation to prevent genocide, enshrined in the 1948 Convention, is not limited to the direct prohibition of committing genocide. According to the ICJ, “The obligation to prevent and the duty to act that is its corollary arise, for a state, when it becomes aware, or should normally become aware, of the existence of a serious risk of the commission of genocide” (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, February 26, 2007, section 431). The orders issued by the Court in 2024 in the case of South Africa v. Israel now make this requirement particularly concrete: third states cannot ignore the risk at hand nor engage in sensitive institutional cooperation without prior evaluation. This obligation also dictates abstaining from any action that could directly or indirectly facilitate the realization of such a risk.
