19.03.25
Editorial Note
The German blog Völkerrechtsblog, an academic blog on international public law and international legal thought, recently announced that in July, it will host a symposium series on the topic “Knowledge under Occupation: Academic Freedom and Palestine on the Global Stage.” Völkerrechtsblog has published a call for contributors.
The people behind the Völkerrechtsblog symposium are Khaled El Mahmoud, a Palestinian-Tunisian PhD candidate and the managing editor; Dr. Sissy Katsoni, co-editor-in-chief; and Anna Sophia Tiedeke, a PhD candidate and co-editor-in-chief.
The online symposium series will be held in collaboration with Opinio Juris, another blog on international law, purporting to “provide a forum for critical and reflective discourse on the current state of academic freedom [and] its erosion amidst the heightened climate of restrictions and constraints imposed upon Palestinian advocacy, a situation that has become increasingly evident in the wake of developments having occurred across the globe since 7 October 2023.”
The symposium will be discussing the “role and potentials of critique in a situation of epistemic inequality and injustice,” vis-a-vis “the detention, suspension, and expulsion of students, the dismissal of academics, threats to dissolve student unions, and the imposition of restrictions on campus events in support of Gaza civilians and in criticism of Israel’s military actions.” Other discussions would be on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which may consider the Israeli military actions a “genocidal campaign”; the “silencing of important critical voices such as Francesca Albanese and Eyal Weizmann at German Universities sacrificing fundamental rights and freedoms for ideological conformity.”
The symposium organizers also attack the internationally accepted Working Definition of Antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). One of the forums will discuss the situation in the United Kingdom, where approximately 120 universities adopted the IHRA Definition, “which conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, effectively silencing lawful speech in support of Palestinian human rights and the right to self-determination. This redefinition has resulted in unreasonable investigations, disciplinary actions, and false allegations of antisemitism against academic staff and students.”
In Germany, according to the symposium organizers, the German parliament adopted a resolution in November 2024, relying on the IHRA Definition “despite massive criticism highlighting the potential for abuse.” Consequently, “repressive measures enacted by the German government against individuals or institutions engaged in advocacy for Palestinian rights in a McCarthyist manner, such as the withdrawal of public funding from numerous arts and cultural institutions, the dissolution of events, the withdrawal of a professorship over a letter expressing solidarity with Palestinians and calling for a boycott of Israeli institutions, the prohibition of politicians’ entry into the country, and the heavy-handed policing of demonstrations, to name but a few.”
The symposium is also expected to discuss how, in the United States, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and France, “comparable instances of repression and the circumscribing of academic freedom and the freedom of expression have been observed, reflecting a trajectory parallel to that witnessed in the United Kingdom and Germany.”
The organizers question whether integrating the Palestinian perspectives that are historically excluded from international legal discourse “can serve as the catalyst for a transformative shift in the field, prompting a re-evaluation of its foundational principles.”
In particular, the authors question “whether international legal thought requires fundamental restructuring, which would necessitate the deconstruction, dissection, and dismantling of its inherited canon, deeply rooted in a hegemonic, colonial, imperialist, and racist tradition of thought.”
The call for contributors invites scholars to “share their experiences of restricted academic freedom in the context of the Palestinian occupation. These experiences, which often expose the pervasive silencing and marginalization of pro-Palestinian voices, offer a unique lens through which to critically examine the structural biases embedded within international legal discourse. Participants are encouraged to reflect on how these constraints might not only highlight the enduring legacy of hegemonic, colonial, imperialist, and racist traditions in international law but also provide a basis for envisioning a radically restructured framework.”
Worth noting that the organizers adopted the critical, neo-Marxist paradigm. Drawing on critiques thinkers like Edward Said, “who interrogated the Eurocentric knowledge systems that sustain colonial power”; and Frantz Fanon, “who emphasized the systemic violence inherent in colonial structures.” By “drawing on the works of critical international legal scholars like David Kennedy and Martti Koskenniemi, as well as feminist theorists such as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, the Symposium aims to examine how international law, often framed as neutral and universal, is implicated in perpetuating inequities.”
IAM often discusses the critical, neo-Marxist scholarship and its lack of academic rigor.
Völkerrechtsblog provides the names of its partners and sponsors. “Our Partners: Three chairs at the Faculty of Law of the University of Münster – Prof. Dr. Michaela Hailbronner, Prof. Dr. Nora Markard, and Prof. Dr. Niels Petersen – cooperate with Völkerrechtsblog and support its day-to-day operations. Völkerrechtsblog cooperates with the Virtual Library for International and Interdisciplinary Legal Research. Völkerrechtsblog cooperates with the German Society of International Law (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht e.V). The German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) supported Völkerrechtsblog in the context of the research project ‘Scientific Blogs as Infrastructure for Digital Publishing and Academic Communication’.”
Wikipedia adds that Völkerrechtsblog is supported also by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.
Völkerrechtsblog collaborates with the German Society of International Law and the Institute for Peacekeeping Law and International Humanitarian Law at the Ruhr University Bochum.
Pushing the Palestinian narrative is not new to this blog. In February, the editor Khaled El Mahmoud authored a Special Editorial titled “A Nation in Crisis: The Suppression of Academic Freedom and the Rise of Ideological Conformity,” where he urged similar “fundamental restructuring” of the legal field to meet the Palestinian agenda.
As well known, the Palestinians failed to provide even a modicum of democracy. At the same time, since October 7, 2023, expat Palestinian academics have been emboldened to criticize the Western democracies in which they reside. IAM has repeatedly pointed out that the academy is the main platform for disseminating the Palestinian narrative on the global stage and bashing Israel. The German sponsors and partners of Völkerrechtsblog should be vigilant.
REFERENCES:
Call for Contributions: Symposium on Knowledge under Occupation
Academic Freedom and Palestine on the Global Stage
14.03.2025
We hereby announce our forthcoming online blogpost symposium, ‘Knowledge Under Occupation: Academic Freedom and Palestine on the Global Stage’, which will be held in collaboration with Opinio Juris and will purport to provide a forum for critical and reflective discourse on the current state of academic freedom. A forum about its erosion amidst the heightened climate of restrictions and constraints imposed upon Palestinian advocacy, a situation that has become increasingly evident in the wake of developments having occurred across the globe since 7 October 2023. A forum also about the role and potentials of critique in a situation of epistemic inequality and injustice.
In this context, one may observe with grave concern the detention, suspension, and expulsion of students, the dismissal of academics, threats to dissolve student unions, and the imposition of restrictions on campus events in support of Gaza civilians and in criticism of Israel’s military actions, the latter of which remain subject to current proceedingsat the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the grounds that they may constitute actions amounting to a genocidal campaign. And most recently, the silencing of important critical voices such as Francesca Albanese and Eyal Weizmann at German Universities sacrificing fundamental rights and freedoms for ideological conformity.
In the United Kingdom, approximately 120 universities have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, effectively silencing lawful speech in support of Palestinian human rights and the right to self-determination. This redefinition has resulted in unreasonable investigations, disciplinary actions, and false allegations of antisemitism against academic staff and students.
In November 2024 the German parliament adopted a resolution relying on the same working definition despite massive criticismhighlighting the potential for abuse. It is noteworthy that this follows a series of repressive measures enacted by the German government against individuals or institutions engaged in advocacy for Palestinian rights in a McCarthyist manner, such as the withdrawal of public funding from numerous arts and cultural institutions, the dissolution of events, the withdrawal of a professorship over a letter expressing solidarity with Palestinians and calling for a boycott of Israeli institutions, the prohibition of politicians’ entry into the country, and the heavy-handed policing of demonstrations, to name but a few.
Comparable instances of repression and the circumscribing of academic freedom and the freedom of expression have been observed in the United States, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and France, reflecting a trajectory parallel to that witnessed in the United Kingdom and Germany.
This raises the question of whether the integration of perspectives historically excluded from international legal discourse—such as those of Palestinians—can serve as the catalyst for a transformative shift in the field, prompting a re-evaluation of its foundational principles. Yet, this possibility remains uncertain. The broader and more pressing issue may be whether international legal thought requires fundamental restructuring, which would necessitate the deconstruction, dissection, and dismantling of its inherited canon, deeply rooted in a hegemonic, colonial, imperialist, and racist tradition of thought (cf. here and here).
Against this background, this symposium builds on the work that has been conducted in relevant journal articles (e.g. here, here and here), blogposts (e.g. here and here) and events (e.g. here, here and here), and invites scholars to share their experiences of restricted academic freedom in the context of the Palestinian occupation. These experiences, which often expose the pervasive silencing and marginalisation of pro-Palestinian voices, offer a unique lens through which to critically examine the structural biases embedded within international legal discourse. Participants are encouraged to reflect on how these constraints might not only highlight the enduring legacy of hegemonic, colonial, imperialist, and racist traditions in international law but also provide a basis for envisioning a radically restructured framework.
This approach resonates with the critiques of thinkers like Edward Said, who interrogated the Eurocentric knowledge systems that sustain colonial power, and Frantz Fanon, who emphasised the systemic violence inherent in colonial structures. By drawing on the works of critical international legal scholars like David Kennedy and Martti Koskenniemi, as well as feminist theorists such as Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, the Symposium aims to examine how international law, often framed as neutral and universal, is implicated in perpetuating inequities.
Thus, the Symposium serves as both a platform to discuss the lived realities of academic restriction and a forum to explore the possibilities of an international legal discourse that transcends the constraints of its dark past, fostering a framework that prioritizes inclusivity, equity, and historical accountability. We thus invite contributors to reflect on the following general themes:
1. Academic Freedom as a Pillar of Democratic Governance and the Rule of Law
Academic freedom has traditionally stood as a foundational pillar of democratic governance and the rule of law, providing the intellectual space necessary for the pursuit of truth and the defence of fundamental rights and liberties. How do the restrictions outlined above affect the enjoyment of academic freedom and how compatible are such restrictions with a democratic society and the rule of law? What roles does academic freedom play in upholding fundamental rights and liberties? How does academic freedom interrelate with other fundamental rights and freedoms? What impact does the chilling effect caused by such restrictions have on human rights advocacy?
2. Intersecting Struggles: The Global Nature of Systemic Oppression and Its Impact on International Law and Legal Academia
What impact do the aforementioned instances of academic freedom’s restriction have on the expression of the voices of marginalised groups and the struggle for inclusion, polyphony, and TWAILing in academic discourse and international legal academia? How do such restrictions sustain existing biases and reinforce racism and epistemic injustice in academia? How does enforced conformity in academic thinking affect the development of international law and legal thought? From an intersectional viewpoint, how does the systemic oppression of the Palestinian struggle shape and confine academic discourse? How does academic freedom enable or restrict Palestinian voice and agency? Could one consider the extensive damage and destruction of educational facilities in Gaza – including schools and universities – as an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system? In other words, could this be regarded as an act of ‘scholasticide’?
3. Academic Freedom in the Shadow of the Crossfire: Suppression, Silence, and Resistance
In light of the fact that the ICJ has been called upon to decide whether Israel’s military actions amount to a genocidal campaign, with the potential for it to reach such a decision in the future, a heightened awareness of the ethical and intellectual responsibilities of academics during such times can be seen to be of particular importance. What is the role of academics and what are good academic practices under such circumstances? How does repression in Israel influence academic freedom in Europe, North America and beyond? Which are the distinguishing lines between criticism and censorship, and what are the risks of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism? How are suppression and practices of silencing used in the global scene for the rewriting of historical narratives and for limiting pathways to justice and remembrance? How can/should academics confront and resist such historical erasures?
The list of proposed topics and the questions outlined above demonstrate the multiplicity and complexity of the issues emerging from the subject matter, which requires careful consideration.
If you are interested in contributing to the symposium with a blogpost that addresses any of the subjects outlined above or other questions falling within the scope of the symposium, please send your submission of 1.500 to 2.000 words (in English) via email to Sissy Katsoni(katsoni@voelkerrechtsblog.org), Khaled El Mahmoud(elmahmoud@voelkerrechtsblog.org), and Anna Sophia Tiedeke(tiedeke@voelkerrechtsblog.org) mentioning the Call for Contributions in the subject line. Submissions should also mention the affiliation of the authors.
The deadline for receipt of submissions is 31 May 2025.
The decision of whether or not a piece will be considered for publication will depend on a number of factors, including the extent to which it adheres to academic rigour, demonstrates originality, and engages with critical discourse. Given the focus of this symposium on restrictions targeted at Palestinian advocacy, we would like to give particular encouragement to submissions from both Palestinians and persons of colour. In order to allow sufficient time for the review of the submitted pieces and their preparation for publication, we anticipate that the authors of the selected blogposts will be informed at the end of June 2025 and that the publication of the symposium will take place in July 2025.
We are looking forward to receiving your submissions and reading your thought-provoking pieces!
Type of symposium: Online symposium taking the form of a blogpost series
Deadline for the receipt of submissions:31 May 2025
Notification of the selection process: June 2025
Envisaged publication date: July 2025
Cite as
Khaled El Mahmoud, Sissy Katsoni & Anna Sophia Tiedeke, Call for Contributions: Symposium on Knowledge under Occupation: Academic Freedom and Palestine on the Global Stage,Völkerrechtsblog,14.03.2025.
Authors
Khaled El Mahmoud
Khaled is a research assistant at the Chair of European and International Law at the University of Potsdam. His research interests focus on international environmental law, the law of the sea, and procedural law of international courts and tribunals. He is a Managing Editor at Völkerrechtsblog.
Sissy Katsoni
Spyridoula (Sissy) Katsoni is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Tilburg University. She is a Co-Editor-in-Chief at Völkerrechtsblog.
Anna Sophia Tiedeke
Anna is a PhD candidate at Humboldt University Berlin and holds a scholarship from the Heinrich Böll Foundation. She is currently working as a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law with the humanet3 research project, which is based in Berlin at the Centre for Human and Machines at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. She is a Co-Editor-in-Chief at Völkerrechtsblog.
===================================================================
Special Editorial: A Nation in Crisis
The Suppression of Academic Freedom and the Rise of Ideological Conformity
21.02.2025
The 19 February 2025 marks the fifth anniversary of the Hanau terror attack, a heinous act of violence perpetrated by a far-right extremist whose racist ideology culminated in the killing of nine people of colour. This atrocity was not an isolated event but rather a symptom of the rise of far-right extremism in Germany.
Amid this already distressing context, yet another alarming development underscores the erosion of democratic values in Germany. The Free University of Berlin cancelled a scheduled event featuring United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (UN SR Albanese) and Professor Eyal Weizman (University of London), Director of ‘Forensic Architecture’ at Goldsmiths. This decision follows a similar stance adopted by the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, which had cancelled an event featuring UN SR Albanese initially set to take place on 16 February 2025.
Both cancellations occurred amid growing political pressure, with several State officials, including the Mayor of Berlin, Berlin’s Minister of Science, and Bavaria’s State Commissioner for Jewish Life and the Fight against Antisemitism, publicly condemning Albanese, accusing her of antisemitism. The official justification for both cancellations was cited as ‘security concerns’ [see here and here]. Yet, the circumstances strongly suggest that these decisions were, in reality, bowing to political pressure rather than addressing genuine threats to public safety.
It appears that only a limited number of legal professors at the Free University of Berlin expressed concern over the decision to cancel the event. They opted to emphasise their distancing from antisemitic positions, thereby implicitly conceding to the allegations directed at UN SR Albanese, suggesting that her statements could, at least in part, be interpreted as antisemitic.
It is worth acknowledging, however, that a number of professors at the Free University of Berlin took it upon themselves to actively pursue the organisation of the event despite its cancellation. Their determination ensured that the event ultimately took place at bUm Berlin in Kreuzberg. Their efforts were commendably supported by student associations from the Free University as well as other political organisations.
Yet, the presence of heavy policing during the event that I attended in person contributed to an atmosphere of intimidation. Police officers were visibly stationed at the back of the room, casting a palpable sense of surveillance over the proceedings. In addition, the event was live-streamed [see here], allowing interested students to participate remotely from the premises of the Free University. Notably, police were also present at the premises of the university during this broadcast, further underscoring the tense and restrictive environment surrounding the event.
Moreover, the police intended to disperse the gathering at the Free University before the event had concluded. It was only due to the persistent efforts of a few dedicated professors that this was prevented, ensuring that the event was allowed to continue until its scheduled end. This incident not only illustrates the level of pressure exerted on those seeking to engage in open academic dialogue but also highlights the essential role of committed professors and scholars in defending academic freedom.
A statement was recently released on Freitag by science associations and non-governmental organisations, explicitly stating that these cancellations ‘are part of a series of measures against people who name and criticize documented violence and warfare in violation of international law in Palestine by the Israeli government and its support by Germany.’ This pointed observation underscores the systematic suppression of critical discourse on international law and human rights, particularly when it concerns Palestine.
In a blog post on Verfassungsblog, Isabel Feichtner expressed her frustration and deep concern over the erosion of academic freedom, stating that she chooses to speak out ‘even if this means losing some friends and funding.’ Her statement underscores the stark reality of academic freedom in Germany today, where taking a principled, outspoken position can come at a professional [see here and here] and personal cost.
However, it remains noteworthy and concerning that the majority of German legal scholarship, particularly from the community of international legal scholars, has been largely absent from this discourse – with a few voices who did speak out, most of whom were BIPoC scholars who did so at notable risk. This overwhelming lack of response is not merely unsettling. It signals tacit approval, reflecting a broader and deeply troubling sentiment that these acts, which may only be qualified as censorship, are justified.
This development is not only alarming but also evokes deeply unsettling historical parallels. It recalls a time that many believed had been consigned to history, when German universities engaged in Selbstgleichschaltung (self-synchronisation), willingly aligning themselves with authoritarian political ideologies [see here]. The complicity of academic institutions in serving oppressive State agendas once facilitated terror, persecution, and the destruction of entire communities. The silence, or worse, the tacit endorsement, of today’s institutions in the face of political coercion suggests that the lessons of the past are being dangerously disregarded.
This is occurring despite the constitutional safeguards meticulously established by the framers of the Grundgesetz (Federal German Constitution), who, in light of the harrowing experiences of universities under the Nazi regime, sought to prevent the recurrence of State-imposed ideological conformity within academic institutions. As a direct response to this historical imperative, academic freedom was explicitly enshrined in Article 5 of the Grundgesetz, positioned prominently within the text to underscore its foundational significance for democratic governance and the rule of law. The deliberate inclusion of this protection reflects a clear commitment to ensuring that universities remain spaces for independent thought, critical inquiry, and open debate – free from political interference.
The cancellation of both events featuring an esteemed international scholar, who also holds a mandate as a UN SR appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, constitutes a serious violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to academic freedom. Such a measure cannot be justified solely on the basis of vague, unsubstantiated security concerns.
Germany’s constitutional order is firmly rooted in the principle of the rule of law, which does not per se preclude State interference with constitutionally protected rights, including academic freedom. However, any such interference is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny and must meet the requirements of justification under the principle of proportionality. Under established constitutional doctrine, limitations on fundamental rights and freedoms are only permissible if they serve a legitimate aim, are suitable and necessary to achieve that aim, and maintain a proper balance between the conflicting constitutional interests at stake.
In this case, the invocation of security concerns, without clear and compelling evidence of an actual, imminent, and concrete danger or threat, fails to satisfy these stringent constitutional requirements. The principle of proportionality demands that any restriction on academic freedom be justified by the need to protect another constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom of equal or higher rank. Mere speculative concerns or political sensitivities do not suffice to override a fundamental right enshrined in Article 5 of the Grundgesetz. Otherwise, fundamental rights and freedoms would cease to enjoy their constitutionally enshrined primacy and would, instead, become subject to a general presumption pro securitate, a presumption in favour of security rather than individual liberty.
Furthermore, these developments must be understood within the broader context of the silence of German universities regarding the ongoing proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), initiated by South Africa against Israel on allegations of genocide. In its order of 26 January 2024, the ICJ determined that the claims presented by South Africa were prima facie plausible and that Israel may plausibly be committing acts constituting genocide. This ruling, carrying significant legal and moral weight, should have prompted rigorous academic engagement, particularly within German universities and among international legal scholars. Yet, there has been a lack of discourse, accompanied by a notable absence of scrutiny concerning the German government’s ongoing military support to Israel through arms exports. This matter has also been the subject of contentious proceedings before the ICJ, culminating in the order of 30 April 2024, where the Court seized the opportunity to ‘remind all States of their international obligations regarding the transfer of arms to parties involved in armed conflicts […] [which are equally] incumbent upon Germany as a State party […] in its supply of arms to Israel’ [see p. 8 para. 24].
This silence raises urgent and fundamental questions. What responsibilities do academics and academic institutions bear in times of grave humanitarian and legal crises? Should universities not serve as the primary arenas where such pressing and complex legal and ethical issues are debated and critically assessed? The refusal to address these issues is not merely an act of omission but may amount to complicity in what can only be described as scholasticide, the systematic suppression of intellectual inquiry and critical debate on matters of profound legal and political significance [see here and here].
This troubling trend appears intricately connected to Germany’s Erinnerungskultur (memory culture), wherein the nation has endeavoured to make public remembrance of the atrocities committed during the Third Reich the very foundation of its collective identity. However, instead of serving as a cornerstone for historical reflection and a commitment to ‘Never Again’, this culture has been operationalised under paradigms of selectivity, political expediency, and a perilous degree of ‘self-righteous hypocrisy’ [see here]. In the context of German universities, this selective memory culture manifests as an institutional reluctance to engage with contemporary issues that resonate with historical injustices.
By failing to fulfil their essential function as spaces of rigorous inquiry and fearless debate, German universities risk becoming enablers of State narratives rather than independent academic institutions dedicated to the pursuit of truth and justice. If they continue to forfeit their responsibility to engage with these critical legal and moral questions, they will not only erode public trust but will also contribute to the broader dismantling of democratic principles and the rule of law.
As a German PhD candidate and early-career researcher of Tunisian and Palestinian origin, I find myself deeply alarmed by the trajectory of our nation. The decisions to cancel both events are not isolated incidents but indicative of a broader and deeply unsettling trend: a retreat from the constitutional safeguards that define Germany’s democratic order. The fundamental right to academic freedom, enshrined in Article 5 of the Grundgesetz, is not a privilege to be granted or withdrawn at will. It is a binding constitutional guarantee that State institutions, including universities, are legally obligated to protect. The fact that these institutions now appear willing to compromise this right in response to political pressures raises serious concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and the encroachment of ideological conformity.
We are at a critical juncture, navigating a political and societal climate that is increasingly hostile to pluralism, dissent, and fundamental freedoms. The upcoming elections provide little hope for an improvement in this situation. Rather, they foreshadow an intensification of the trends that have already begun to undermine the foundations of democratic governance. Against this backdrop, I fear not only for my future as a scholar in this country but also for my place in German society as a citizen and, most fundamentally, as a human being.
If academic institutions, once considered bastions of free thought and intellectual courage, choose to silence critical voices rather than defend them, then the very essence of democracy is at stake. The question we must confront is not merely one of academic freedom but of the broader trajectory of a nation that appears increasingly willing to sacrifice its foundational principles in the face of political expediency. If we do not resist these encroachments now, we may soon find ourselves in a society where fundamental rights are no longer guaranteed, but merely tolerated at the discretion of those in power.
Yet, I refuse to stop here. Despite the gravity of the present moment, I choose to hold onto hope, not only for myself but for all those who share the same fear and uncertainty about what lies ahead. Despair must not be the final response to the erosion of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Rather, it must serve as a catalyst for action.
To those who have spoken out against these alarming developments: do not relent. Do not lower your voices in the face of intimidation or political coercion. Instead, let your voices grow louder, let your convictions strengthen, and let your advocacy for academic freedom and democratic integrity become ever more resolute. History has shown that silence in times of injustice is complicity, but resistance, no matter how daunting, has the power to alter the course of events.
To those who have remained silent: now is the time to find your voice. The constitutional guarantees that underpin our democratic order cannot be safeguarded through passive observation. The duty to defend the principles of academic freedom, the rule of law, and human dignity rests upon all of us, and each moment of silence only emboldens those who seek to dismantle these protections. It is not too late to speak out. It is not too late to take a stand.
The future of our democracy depends on our collective commitment to upholding its fundamental tenets. Let us not allow fear to dictate our actions but instead draw strength from our shared responsibility to defend the very principles that define a just and free society.
Disclaimer
The author would like to thank Anna Sophia Tiedeke and Alicja Polakiewiz for their helpful insights and contributions, which have informed and enriched the development of this piece. The views expressed in this editorial are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Völkerrechtsblog or its editorial team as a whole. However, the following members of the Völkerrechtsblog editorial team explicitly endorse the views presented in this piece, as they share the author’s profound concern about the worrisome developments that constitute serious encroachments upon academic freedom and threaten the integrity of democratic discourse:
Isabel Lischewski
Anna Sophia Tiedeke
Alicja Polakiewicz
Jasmin Wachau
Sissy Katsoni
Cite as
Khaled El Mahmoud, Special Editorial: A Nation in Crisis: The Suppression of Academic Freedom and the Rise of Ideological Conformity,Völkerrechtsblog,21.02.2025, doi: 10.17176/20250222-000803-0.
===============================================================
„Where if not at a university“
Following pressure from politicians, the Free University of Berlin has cancelled the public, in-person lectures planned for 2/19/2025 by UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese and Israeli architect Prof. Eyal Weizman. A week earlier, the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich cancelled a lecture by Francesca Albanese. Such actions confirm a worrying trend: political influence undermining university autonomy and endangering academic freedom.
These cancellations are part of a series of measures against people who name and criticize documented violence and warfare in violation of international law in Palestine by the Israeli government and its support by Germany. Debates about the violent reality of the Gaza war are thus deliberately hindered, and academic freedom, which is constitutionally protected (art. 5, para. 3 German Basic Law) is being arbitrarily, politically restricted at universities. The role of the university as a space for open debate about current and international themes is being curtailed—academics in Germany and around the world recognize this with dismay. The handling of politically critical positions creates a climate of self-censorship in reporting, program planning and academic debate culture.
The Free University leadership’s justification that there was an “incalculable security risk” is neither substantiated nor credible: at other European universities, Albanese was and is able to speak without incident. In fact, the cancellation only occurred after public pressure from political actors and interest groups, such as the Israeli Ambassador and the German-Israeli Society, which was reproduced in the press, and subsequently also by the Governing Mayor Kai Wegner (CDU) and the Senator for Higher Education of Berlin Ina Czyborra (SPD), who discredited Albanese and accused her of antisemitism. This amounts to a kind of state-imposed ban on factually supported criticism of Israel’s warfare—an unacceptable interference into freedom of opinion, academic freedom and university autonomy.
Universities under pressure
It is also unprecedented for an incumbent mayor to campaign against a UN special rapporteur speaking publicly—this is an act of blatant disregard for her position and for the UN Human Rights Commission. Particularly in times when the human rights-based international order is being openly questioned from many sides and the fight for human rights is under pressure from all sides, it is imperative to not further undermine the significance of UN institutions and their experts, and instead to acknowledge them clearly and bank on exchange rather than the avoidance of discourse.
Varying opinions on the positions of Albanese and Weizman exist. And universities in particular are places where differences in opinion should be negotiated in open discourse. Fears and concerns must be taken seriously, and antisemitism must be firmly opposed. However, diluting the concept of antisemitism is of no help here, nor is the instrumentalization of antisemitism accusations to cancel an event that could also have discussed these issues.
We demand that the leadership of universities resist pressure from biased press coverage and politicians and defend university autonomy as well as the freedom of opinion and academic freedom of their staff and students. This includes, in particular, protecting positions that are not aligned with government policy. We demand that politicians respect university autonomy, freedom of expression and academic freedom and consistently work to uphold international law, including vis-à-vis Israel.
Institutions that depend on public funding and are thus vulnerable to politically motivated influence and pressure must be permitted to provide space for critical discussions. “Where, if not at a university, can controversial debates be held, viewpoints be heard and academically classified?” the president of the FU Berlin asked in his press statement on the cancellation of the event. We share this question. The response must be: It is the responsibility of all involved parties to defend these democratic achievements and to champion the exercise of such constitutionally guaranteed liberties.
Support:
Allianz für Kritische und Solidarische Wissenschaft
Amnesty International Deutschland
Arts and Culture Alliance Berlin
Association of Palestinian and Jewish Academics
Association des Universitaires pour le Respect du Droit International en Palestine
berufsverband bildender künstler*innen berlin
British Committee for the Universities of Palestine
Bündnis für Gerechtigkeit zwischen Israelis und Palästinensern (BIP)
Deutsch-Palästinensische Gesellschaft
Einstein Forum
ELSC – European Legal Support Center
Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung (FIfF)
Forum Ziviler Friedensdienst e.V.
Internationale der Kriegsdienstgegner*innen
International Research Group on Authoritarianism & Counter-Strategies, Universität Potsdam
interventionistische Linke Berlin
Israelisches Komitee gegen Hauszerstörungen (ICAHD)
Komitee für Grundrechte und Demokratie e.V.
Netzwerk für Gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft (NGAWiss)
pax christi – Deutsche Sektion
pax christi – Kommission Nahost
Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen (VDJ)
Themen
Francesca Albanese gecancelt: Hier läuft ein autoritärer Anti-Antisemitismus aus dem RuderPeter UllrichBettina Stark-Watzinger gefährdet Wissenschaftsfreiheit in beispielloser WeiseUlrike BaureithelPalästina und die Meinungsfreiheit: Eine Universität ohne Protest ist totUlrike Baureithel
israel-academia-monitor.com 
2 thoughts on “Pro-Palestinians Take Over German Academic Blog of International Law”