02.09.26
Editorial Note
The Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology (ESC) brings together criminologists and professionals in related fields. It provides a platform for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers globally to discuss and share their work on various aspects of criminology, criminal justice, and related social sciences.
In 2026, the annual Eurocrim Conference, under the theme “Frontiers of Criminology,” will take place in Warsaw, Poland, on 9–12 September 2026.
A highly polarized activist campaign is targeting the ESC. The boycott calls are organized by the group Criminologists for Palestine, alongside broader Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) networks.
Boycott activists are calling for an academic boycott of the Conference due to the ESC’s refusal to sever ties with Israeli academic institutions, specifically targeting scholars affiliated with Ariel University (located in a West Bank settlement). The pressure began intensifying during the Eurocrim 2025 Conference in Athens, where local Greek institutions and student unions successfully pressured Panteion University to withdraw its local sponsorship of the event. When activists tried to force an official institutional boycott vote during the 2025 General Assembly, the ESC Executive Board blocked the motion.
The Boycott organizers argue that the ESC is “whitewashing” and “normalizing war crimes by failing to implement ethical due diligence or exclude complicit state-affiliated institutions.” Boycott organizers urged keynote speakers, panelists, and attendees to boycott the Eurocrim events. The ESC Executive Board maintains that institutional boycotts violate the Society’s constitution and its core mission of academic freedom. The board stated that the ESC does not exclude individual participants based on nationality, religion, or institutional affiliation, though they have condemned international human rights violations.
However, despite all the friction, online petitions, and pushback from activist members, Eurocrim 2026 is moving forward. The ESC Board has engaged in membership consultations regarding its ethical policies, but has firmly rejected calls to cancel or institutionally restrict the upcoming event.
Still, Criminologists for Palestine recently published a statement on August 28, 2026, attacking the board and stating that in 2025, the board “subverted the democratic workings of the Society by preventing a vote on our Motion – which won overwhelming support at the general assembly – and instead chose to provide impunity to complicity in Israeli atrocity crimes. This controversial decision continues to reverberate today.”
Criminologists for Palestine claims that the number of participants in this year’s Eurocrim has declined by hundreds. According to them, “This decrease in the number of participants illustrates the harm done by the ESC Board to the Society itself, and to the capacity of our discipline to critically and publicly engage in our scientific field of expertise more broadly. The events since the denial of a formal vote last September suggest that the ESC board has not changed its ways.”
Criminologists for Palestine protest the fact that during the ESC Presidential Address, the President revealed traveling to Israel to attend a conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “To travel to a country currently committing a genocide, which the UN has observed takes place through ‘deliberately targeting Palestinian children’ is not a matter of balance. To visit an institute deeply embedded in the training soldiers, developing weapons, and silencing dissent towards such a genocide is sign of unwavering support. It is unfortunate that this bears repeating: opposition to a genocide and support to a genocide are not equal opinions that require balancing.”
Criminologists for Palestine declare they will continue to “advocate for a Society, and a Criminological discipline more broadly, that does not willfully ignore crime and harm when the perpetrators are in a position of power. We will continue to work to make use of the specific expertise found in our discipline to challenge the perpetrators of atrocity crimes and the structures that enable them.”
To recall, IAM reported on “‘Criminologists for Palestine’ Mounts Pressure on the European Society of Criminology to Boycott Israel” in January 2025, and earlier, in September 2024, IAM reported that “The European Society of Criminology Conference in Athens Targeted by BDS.” Our posts noted that the Conference topics were diverse, including panels on crimes committed during times of war, the psychological impact of the October 7 Hamas attack, and others. Many panels were critical of Israel. For example, a roundtable titled “Types of Offending/Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes” discussed how “Israel’s war on Gaza has continued unabated for many months, killing over 60,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are women and children,” among others.
However, a total of 16 Israeli academics took part in the Conference, of whom at least 7 were affiliated with Ariel University.
At the time, during the General Assembly, the ESC Board declared that an academic boycott of Israel was unconstitutional and could not be put to a vote. Yet, BDS activists were given a vast space to operate inside and outside the Conference halls. Israeli scholars were targeted by attempts to interrupt their presentations.
IAM noted that during the Conference, Criminologists for Palestine tried to push for a resolution to boycott Israel, without success.
After the Conference, the Criminologists for Palestine held a conference titled “Criminological Perspectives on Palestine: Legal Responses and Academic Complicity in Times of Genocide,” in Ljubljana, stating that this conference “seeks to explore the ways in which criminologists can, and should, address state criminality; to consider how criminological scholarship may contribute critical analyses of violations committed by Israel in Palestine, including genocide; and to examine how the discipline might engage with ongoing debates concerning academic complicity and calls to boycott institutions implicated in such violations.”
In response to boycott calls, the ESC Executive Board (EB) published a report in January 2025, saying that the ESC “views this debate as a manifestation of a more general discussion about the role of social sciences. A considerable portion of our membership believes imposing a particular normative or moral perspective on scholarly activity is inherently unscientific, censorial and political; while another substantial contingent is uncomfortable with a criminology that does not proclaim and condemn injustices—not only within scientific discourse but also in the public domain. Social science is by nature pluralistic and thrives on controversy rather than consensus. The role of the EB, therefore, is not to serve as final arbiter in these debates, but rather to guide the Society through current events in a manner that allows both camps to continue feeling at home within the ESC.”
The pressure mounted by Criminologists for Palestine included a petition titled “Petition Against Complicity,” urging, “The only possibility of legal compliance for the ESC is therefore to exclude participants willingly partaking in a war crime, including those from Ariel University.”
IAM noted that an Israeli academic is a key activist with the group Criminologists for Palestine, pushing for BDS. His name is Dr. Lior Volinz, a researcher at the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana. Volinz is a longtime anti-Israel activist. As reported in 2006, at the age of 18, Volinz was a member of a group of persons refusing to enlist in the Israeli army. Dr. Ishai Menuchin, spokesperson for Yesh Gvul, a movement of army refusers, supported Volinz’s refusal to enlist in 2006. He said in an interview that he is convinced that 18-year-old Lior Volinz and his friend, who announced that they are refusing to enlist in the IDF, are heroes.
In 2019, Volinz was among the signatories of an “[Open Letter] Criticizing Israeli policy is not anti-Semitism!” Claiming “This is part of a broader trend of silencing voices critical of Israeli policy. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular, is often labeled antisemitic. This is a worrying development.”
In August 2025, Volinz participated in a conference where he spoke about “how Israel uses privatization and digitization of surveillance to deepen its occupation and control over the lives of Palestinians.”
At the upcoming Eurocrim 2026, the organizers expect over 2,200 participants. Only some eight presenters are from Israel, and none are from Ariel University – in striking contrast to last year. The Ariel boycott has taken effect.
Eurocrim 2026 is a typical example of the so-called “activist capture” of a large organization – where a dedicated group of anti-Israel advocates manages to marginalize Israeli scholars and, more to the point, misrepresent the terms of genocide, war crimes, and other concepts related to International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The same dynamics were at play when Israel was accused of all sorts of crimes, genocide, starving the population of Gaza, and bombing hospitals and residential facilities. In reality, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad had brought the disaster on the Palestinian population by embedding in public sites – hospitals, mosques, schools, and turning them into human shields. Such practices are IHL, but bound by its anti-Israel animus, the Association would never discuss Hamas’s crimes. The Conference exemplified the selective application of human-rights standards: egregious violations elsewhere are largely ignored, while Israel has been singled out for sustained condemnation.
Israel Academia Monitor will continue to report on this issue.
REFERENCES:
Towards Eurocrim 2026
Statement by Criminologists for Palestine, 28.8.2026
Last year, the board of the European Society of Criminology (ESC) subverted the democratic workings of the Society by preventing a vote on our Motion – which won overwhelming support at the general assembly – and instead chose to provide impunity to complicity in Israeli atrocity crimes. This controversial decision continues to reverberate today. The number of participants in this year’s Eurocrim – the major annual event of the Society – has declined by hundreds, far above seasonal variation. This is not coincidental. A large number of participants chose to boycott the Eurocrim conference in a sign of protest – and demand for change – after the board gave precedence to complicity in atrocity crimes over the democratic wishes of its membership. Many other criminologists do not plan to attend due to consternation, disappointment, and lack of trust in a board which denies its members their legal rights. This decrease in the number of participants illustrates the harm done by the ESC Board to the Society itself, and to the capacity of our discipline to critically and publicly engage in our scientific field of expertise more broadly.
The events since the denial of a formal vote last September suggest that the ESC board has not changed its ways. In this spring, the Board has released a set of questions of its own writing to informally consult the membership. Among other questions, the board asked whether the Society should issue a statement on atrocity crimes committed in Gaza. The membership responded clearly in the positive. The Board then released a unilateral statement on Gaza, one that mentions Israelis only as victims and Palestinians only as perpetrators. Any mention of the atrocity crimes reported in Gaza, including genocide, is made without a culprit and without a victim. This is not what the membership voted for, and this is not what democracy looks like.
At the same time, the ESC Presidential Address revealed that the ESC President has recently travelled to Israel to attend a conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. To travel to a country currently committing a genocide, which the UN has observed takes place through ‘deliberately targeting Palestinian children’ is not a matter of balance. To visit an institute deeply embedded in the training soldiers, developing weapons, and silencing dissent towards such a genocide is sign of unwavering support. It is unfortunate that this bears repeating: opposition to a genocide and support to a genocide are not equal opinions that require balancing.
The Board of the ESC continues to block a democratic vote on the motion proposed by Criminologists for Palestine. The ESC secretary has recently asserted that the motion is unconstitutional since it calls for ‘exclusionary measures such as denying membership or conference participation on the basis of a person’s nationality or their link to a particular state, territory, or institution’. This is false. The motion does not target individuals, or calls for an exclusion of members. Instead, it calls upon members to follow the recommendations triggered by ICJ decision not to enter into institutional arrangements with institutions involved in atrocity crimes. This position has won overwhelming support among the 700 members of the ESC who attended the last general assembly.
Criminologists for Palestine will continue to advocate for a Society, and a Criminological discipline more broadly, that does not willfully ignore crime and harm when the perpetrators are in a position of power. We will continue to work to make use of the specific expertise found in our discipline to challenge the perpetrators of atrocity crimes and the structures that enable them.
Response to the ESC’s Call for Vote – 30.1.2026
The Board of the European Society of Criminology has published, with a delay of many months, a set of questions to the ESC membership on the Society’s response to Israel’s atrocity crimes. This set of questions seeks to replace the democratic will of the ESC membership, including their right to vote on a motion against complicity in atrocity crimes – a motion that won overwhelming support at the ESC 2025 General Assembly. We acknowledge that the set of questions does put to a vote one of the motion’s demands – that the ESC makes a statement on Israel’s atrocity crimes. However, we are alarmed that this set of questions continues to prevent a vote on our main demand – that the ESC should call on members not to provide material support to academic institutions complicit in Israel’s crimes. We extend further on the violations of members’ rights by the ESC Board at the end of this statement.
We call on ESC members to vote on the questions posed by the ESC Board while continuing to act for the ESC to fullfil its democratic mission by enabling a vote on complicity in atrocity crimes. We support colleagues who choose to boycott the ESC, who publish on the topic, who organize activities on complicity at ESC events and who convey their concerns to the ESC Board.
We call on ESC members to vote, using their personal invitation link, as following:
Section A:
1a. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes in Europe)
1b. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes outside Europe)
1c. Yes (for the ESC to issue statements on atrocity crimes committed by Israel in Gaza)
2. Yes (for the ESC to correctly register conference participants from illegal Israeli institutions based in the Occupied Palestinian territories).
Why we believe the ESC Board continues to provide impunity to complicity in Israeli atrocity crimes
- The European Society of Criminology is a Society of its members; the Executive Board is appointed to execute the will of the membership, represented under Swiss law by the General Assembly. To deny a vote on an agenda item placed in front of the membership, to which overwhelming support was shown, is a subversion of the democratic workings of the Society. This violation has been post-factum explained by the Board’s recent request for a ‘legal opinion’: however, the Board continues to block information on the content of the legal advice it sought on the Society’s expense, whom it was sought from, or what were the parameters of its request. Specifically, the continuous choice to prevent the membership from exercising their right to a vote on the Motion’s central demand – accountability for the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in atrocity crimes – is a violation of the rights of the membership. No legal reasoning was given to explain this violation; instead, the Board falsely claims that our motion targets individual scholars. To make it clear – for the ESC to call on its members not to provide material support for legal entities found by UNHRC to be complicit in grave atrocity crimes is matter of compliance with international law, not an unconstitutional act nor a violation of academic freedom.
The ESC Board subversion of the democratic workings of the Society is not unique to the ESC. It is a part of a wider assault on academic freedom, centred in Trump’s America where a number of scholarly associations similarly blocked a democratic vote on Israel’s atrocity crimes. - We are appalled by the message of the ESC President, a message that opposes action on complicity in atrocity crimes and decrying our work for accountability and transparency as a violation of academic freedom. We do not agree with this assertion: we believe that as a discipline studying crime we are professionally and morally obliged to address atrocity crimes, and speak publicly even when those crimes are supported, facilitated, funded or tolerated through silence by European governments and institutions. The message by the ESC President further asserts that the true victims are Israeli scholars, who are confronted with legitimate discussions on the role of their institutions in advancing atrocity crimes. In this discussion there is no space foreseen to our Palestinian colleagues, whose universities have been bombed to rubble by Israeli forces; whose families have been killed, maimed, tortured or held in illegal detention; or who’ve lost their livelihood for speaking out on Israel’s crimes. The choice of words by prof. Anna-Maria Getoš Kalac is significant in explaining not only her own, but also the ESC Board lack of moral order and its continuous support for normalization of and complicity in Israel’s atrocity crimes.
Criminologists for Palestine, 30.1.2026
—————————
What happened at the Eurocrim 2025 conference in Athens? The issue of the response by the European Society of Criminology (ESC) to the genocide and atrocity crimes in Palestine overshadowed the annual conference. Our motion won overwhelming support, but the ESC Board denied the membership a democratic vote. Read our full report here.
Vote of support for Criminologists for Palestine’s motion, ESC General Assembly 2025
Motion of the European Society of Criminology concerning collaborations with Israeli academic institutions in light of the ongoing genocide committed by Israel in Gaza and other systematic human rights violations in Palestine
Considering that the European Society of Criminology has on numerous occasions manifested its commitment to academic freedom and human rights;
Considering that international intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, have documented and verified Israel’s systematic annexation and colonization of Palestinian territories, massive violations of the human rights of Palestinians, including the right to self-determination, a 18-year blockade of the Gaza strip, segregationist and discriminating policies and laws, the ongoing massacres and deliberate starvation of civilians in Gaza which all major international, Palestinian and Israeli human rights organisations consider a genocide, and the International Court of Justice consider plausible a genocide; and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor acknowledges Israel’s responsibility in war crimes and crimes against humanity; and the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal, amounts to annexation and violates the prohibition against apartheid;
considering the systematic violations reported, which include the relentless killing of teachers, students, researchers, journalists, and cultural workers, and its systematic destruction of schools, universities, libraries, archives, heritage sites, and cultural institutions, which effectively have obliterated the entire sector of education and research in Gaza, also characterized as ‘scholasticide’;
Considering that these systematic violations also include restricting freedom of movement for Palestinians; isolating, undermining, or otherwise attacking Palestinian educational institutions; harassing Palestinian professors, teachers, and students; harassing Israeli professors and students criticizing Israeli policies; destroying, confiscating, or otherwise rendering Palestinian archival material inaccessible; and maintaining inequality in educational resources between Palestinians and Israelis;
Considering that Israeli academic institutions are reported to be imbricated in these systematic violations through their provision of direct assistance to the Israeli military and intelligence establishments, that they (among others – Technion, Hebrew University, Ben Gurion University, Tel Aviv University) are reported to hold joint programs with arms industries, and conduct specialized training program for soldiers; and that some Israeli academic institutions are located in the Occupied Palestinian territories, in violation of international law;
Considering that European governments and public institutions have systematically shielded successive Israeli governments from being held accountable for the aforementioned violations and facilitated them through unprecedented diplomatic, military, and economic support; and considering that complicit Israeli academic institutions continue to enjoy access to European Union research funds and resources;
Considering that in order for UN member states to meet their obligations as triggered by the International Court of Justice ruling, they must “[c]ancel or suspend economic relationships, trade agreements and academic relations with Israel that may contribute to its unlawful presence and apartheid regime in the occupied Palestinian territory”;
Considering that the European Society of Criminology is committed to academic freedom, including by continuing to welcome to its conferences and any activities all scholars, irrespective of their nationality or background, who accept the values the Society ascribes to, as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and other key Council of Europe Conventions and Recommendations; and that the need for immediate action using peaceful means has never been greater; be it
Resolved, that the ESC:
- Does not and will not collaborate with complicit Israeli institutions, as identified by the UN HRC, UN OHCHR, or other relevant UN bodies, until Israel complies with International Law and International Humanitarian Law; does not publicise, promote, or encourage such collaborations or any related activities.
- Calls on ESC members not to enter into institutional arrangements, e.g. through common research projects and grants, with such complicit Israeli academic institutions, until Israel complies with International Law and International Humanitarian Law.
- Recognizes and condemns the genocidal acts committed by Israel in Gaza, and the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel in all parts of Palestine, as found by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s office.
- Supports the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court in tackling, without fear of retaliation, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and the work of all human rights organisations and of researchers to uncover, examine and report these crimes, and resists any attempts to stigmatise or silence staff and students at European universities engaged in research, speech, and actions on Palestine.
- Builds academic links with Palestinian universities and academics; speaks out against the destruction of the educational sector and restrictions on academic freedom in Palestine; demand an end to limitations on travel, research, and expression for Palestinian scholars and students; advocates for the removal of barriers, such as checkpoints and travel restrictions, that impede academics’ and students’ ability to attend classes, participate in research, and engage in academic activities.
- Directs the ESC Executive Board to work to give effect to the spirit and intent of this motion, including through the publication of implementation guidelines, in a manner consistent with ESC’s bylaws as well as the relevant national laws.
==============================================================
Disproportionate Killings of Civilians in the Gaza Genocide: The Rules of Engagement, Artificial Intelligence, and the Disregard for the Principle of Proportionality
Thu, September 10, 3:45 to 5:00pm, Faculty of Applied Languages – 55 Dobra Street., Floor: 3, Room 3.150
Abstract
This paper examines the normalization of disproportionate killings of civilians as an integral part of genocidal violence in Gaza. Based on Israeli government statements, news media reports, and UN reports, it provides an interpretive analysis of the various elements of the target selection process – for example, the use of over-broad rules of engagement, the employment of artificial intelligence (AI) for determining alleged military targets, and the reinterpretation of key aspects of proportionality assessments – to demonstrate how the Israeli military deliberately disregarded the principle of proportionality, thus enabling disproportionate violence against Palestinian civilians.
The paper is divided into two parts. First, it discusses how the use of an AI-based tool that was unable to see all civilians trapped on the battlefield resulted in an inability to determine “expected civilian losses,” a key element of proportionality assessments. Second, the paper examines how the Israeli military reinterpreted key aspects of proportionality assessments to ignore the constraints of the proportionality rule. For example, the military adopted various civilian fatality cut-off values in proportionality assessments, thereby quantifying civilian losses. Additionally, the military used an overly broad definition of “military advantage,” which led to a misinterpretation of the proportionality rule.
The paper demonstrates how the Israeli military deliberately created conditions for disproportionate killings of civilians, thus enabling genocidal violence in Gaza. The human-machine assemblage in the target selection process significantly expanded the scope of the unlawful use of armed force and decreased the protection of civilians.
Author: Vasja Badalič, Institute of Criminology
Anti-Semitism and Criticism of Israel’s Policy – Empirical Insights into Differences and Overlaps
Sat, September 12, 9:00 to 10:15am, Faculty of Applied Languages – 55 Dobra Street., Floor: 2, Room 2.136
Abstract
In light of developments in the Middle-East, particularly escalting military conflicts in Gaza, Libanon and Iran a nationally representative survey was conducted in spring 2025, involving approximately 4 000 adult residents of Germany. The survey explored their attitudes towards the policies of the State of Israel, as well as the prevalence of various forms of anti-Semitic sentiment. Specifically, it examined the extent to which: (a) traditional, prejudice-driven anti-Semitism directed against Jews can be distinguished from (b) anti-Semitism that is associated with Israel’s policies but also directed at Jews more broadly, and (c) critique of Israeli policies, which is non-anti-Semitic in nature. Employing latent class analysis, the study aims to identify whether distinct patterns of these attitudes can be discerned. The characterised groups are described based on their core attributes and analysed with regard to potential factors of differentiation.
Authors
Peter Wetzels, Universität Hamburg
Katrin Brettfeld, Universität Hamburg
Janosch Kleinschnittger, Universität Hamburg
israel-academia-monitor.com 