BLOG

BruCeL Reflections on the 1st NextGen Legal Scholars Conference 

Last Friday, 20 March 2026, the very first NextGen Legal Scholars Conference (NLSC) took place at the Learning and Innovation Center (LIC) of the VUB. The conference invited scholars to reflect on the evolving role of law in times of structural uncertainty, across all legal disciplines. More important than its central theme, however, the conference sought to offer young legal researchers an opportunity to connect with peers, share ideas, and present ongoing work, research projects, papers or recently defended PhD theses. In the end, we welcomed more than 60 participants and two keynote speakers and organized nine panel discussions. In six of those panel discussions, members of our research group were involved as chair, discussant, or both. Four members of our research group presented their research during the event.

Human rights and the reality of socioeconomic division and discrimination 

In the morning, after an insightful keynote speech of VUB alumna and Minister of the Brussels Capital Region Elke Van Den Brandt, Louize chaired the first panel of the day, titled “Human rights and the reality of socioeconomic division and discrimination”. Prof. dr. Evelien Timbermont acted as a discussant, while dra. Marthe Delodder presented her work on socio-fiscal measures and EU free movement law. The panel discussion attracted a significant audience, with the LIC’s Learning Theatre almost completely full. 
 

During the panel, the presenters – informed by interesting questions by prof. dr. Timbermont and the public – explored the widening gap between traditional legal frameworks and the rise of non-standard employment, noting that current social security and labour standards often fail to protect those outside conventional working schemes. They concluded that it is essential to map existing benefits to identify which populations remain underserved by the current law. The panel highlighted the work of a new generation of scholars addressing these disparities through diverse lenses, including socio-fiscal responses to energy poverty, the limits of judicial deference in discrimination cases, remedies to systemic discrimination, and the protection of teachers’ freedom of expression. Furthermore, the discussion emphasized the importance of academic reflexivity when advocating for marginalised actors. By embracing empirical research and the integration of artificial intelligence, it appeared that the scholars presenting on this panel are expanding the methodological boundaries of the field, signalling a hopeful and innovative future for legal studies.  
  

Legal protection and advancement of children’s rights in the 21st century

At the same time, Xanne chaired a panel discussion on the legal protection of children’s rights in the 21st century. Dr. Sofie De Bus, part of the Department of Private law and a member of the BRIDGE research group acted as a discussant, while dra. Boróka Balla discussed the online dimension of the duty to ensure a safe school environment. The panel highlighted that advancing children’s rights requires building trust through predictability and transparency in institutional action, with schools playing a central role as part of the solution. However, schools cannot carry this responsibility alone and need concrete support, including practical tools to assess and strengthen their capacity to uphold children’s rights. More broadly, speakers emphasized the importance of adopting an Integrated Children’s Rights-Based Approach. This approach is grounded in the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and wider human rights frameworks but goes beyond legal standards to address power relations, social norms, and contextual realities, ensuring meaningful participation, accountability, non-discrimination, and the best interests of the child in practice.

The discussions also underscored how structural and emerging challenges, particularly climate change and digital governance, are reshaping children’s rights. Climate change exacerbates poverty and gender inequality, contributing to harmful practices such as child marriage as a survival strategy. In parallel, overly broad state restrictions in digital spaces risk undermining children’s rights to information and expression. A critical blind spot identified was the situation of children in climate-induced displacement, especially the often-overlooked dimension of cultural displacement and loss of identity, which can have irreversible impacts. Despite increasing recognition, protections remain weak and fragmented, pointing to the urgent need for binding frameworks, child-responsive policies, and dedicated resources to address these interconnected challenges.

International law in an era threats, tensions, and aggression

After a well-deserved lunch break, the panel sessions resumed. The first panel delved into international law in an era threats, tensions, and aggression. Unsurprisingly, given this panel’s topicality, almost every chair in the Learning Theatre was filled again. After all, ongoing wars and occupations have raised complex international law questions, such as the legality of interventions, state sovereignty, and the protection of human rights during armed conflicts. Dra. Leslie Kassongo Tambu, PhD researcher in international criminal law and member of the Fundamental Rights Centre, led the discussion, with prof. dr. Stefaan Smis acting as a discussant. In this panel, drs. Victor Van Steendam presented his research proposal on the crime of aggression and the emerging regional approaches to its enforcement. 

Cleaner, safer and greener: can law assist us in having it all?

A conference on law in a world of uncertainly would not be complete without a panel discussion on environmental law. After all, climate change continues to be one of the most urgent challenges of our time, prompting legal questions regarding environmental protection, responsibility for climate damages, and the role of (international) law. During second panel after the lunch break, chaired by Xanne and moderated by prof. dr. Liliana Lizarazo-Rodriguez (Brussels School of Governance), some of these questions were answered and reflected on. Across this panel, a common thread clearly emerged: the growing centrality of due diligence as a governance tool in environmental law.

First, due diligence is increasingly used to regulate complex global value chains. A key element in this is traceability: the ability to track products, components, and risks across different stages of production. Rather than directly controlling every stage, the EU relies on certification systems, standards, and traceability mechanisms to ensure product safety and sustainability. Second, this shift raises important questions about who is responsible for enforcement. Much of due diligence relies on private actors, such as certification bodies and auditing scheme, rather than public authorities. While this allows for flexibility, it also creates concerns about consistency, accountability, and effectiveness. Third, new instruments, such as ecodesign requirements and digital product passports, are expected to significantly strengthen traceability. These tools promise greater transparency across value chains, but it remains uncertain whether they will lead to substantive change or mainly function as technological fixes. Finally, due diligence frameworks often focus on specific risks, such as product safety, while broader concerns like environmental justice and global inequalities remain only partially addressed. Overall, due diligence is becoming a central pillar of environmental governance. But its success will depend on how well traceability, accountability, and enforcement are combined to deliver real-world impact.
 

Shifting dynamics in Brussels: trends and developments in EU law

The third panel discussion after the lunch break was dedicated to the latest developments in EU institutional and constitutional law. The panel was chaired by Brecht, while prof. dr. Merijn Chamon acted as a discussant. Despite the variety of issues discussed, every presentation highlighted the ever-creative interpretation of the EU Treaties, with formal Treaty revision not being high on the political agenda. This common theme allowed for a thought-provoking discussion on the legitimacy of teleological Treaty interpretation. 

The panel started off on a more historical note, discussing the expansion of powers in the EU. Whereas emphasis is traditionally put on the role of the Court of Justice in this process, the panelists highlighted the role of other EU political organs – not in the least the European Commission and the European Parliament – and EU legal academia. After that, dra. Ewa Romanowska explored the emerging but still elusive concept of strategic autonomy in EU external relations law. Is it an objective, a value or a mere political frame to advance EU interests in a new era of geopolitics? The third panel presentation examined the EU’s 2028-2034 Own Resources Decision and the changes it brings. Several constitutional challenges were highlighted, most notably in relation to the infamous Article 122 TFEU, which was the subject of our last discussion. We focused on the EU legislator’s growing reliance on this provision in post-COVID governance and discussed whether it had become a new ‘super-competence’ for the EU. 
 

The role of the state against the backdrop of technological evolution, democratic erosion and empowered citizens

After a much needed coffee break, the last round of panel discussions started. The panel chaired by Brecht and moderated by prof. dr. Steven Verbeyst, discussed several challenges constitutional and administrative law faces in the 21st century. A key concern proved to be the growing influence of Big Tech and other intermediaries, distorting the classic relationship between state power and citizens. This is particularly visible in the new models of online speech regulation, which was the subject of the first presentation. Along similar lines, the panel also discussed whether Big Tech could be treated as a non-state legal system.

After that, the panel discussed two issues at the intersection of law and politics that have recently caused some stir in the Belgian press. First, we examined the protection of whistleblowers in light of the discriminatory domicile registration policy in the municipality of Aalter. Second, the panel discussed the procedural difficulties in enforcing judicial decisions against the state. Although this these difficulties gained quite some attention in Belgium, particularly with regard to asylum and migration law, the discussion revealed that other EU Member States, such as Italy, face similar problems. We closed the panel session with a presentation on experimental regulatory instruments and had an interesting discussion on the notion of ‘laboratory federalism’ and its (lack of) explanatory value for the Belgian landscape. 

Conclusions

Following the panel sessions, dr. Vince Liégeois delivered an engaging keynote speech titled “Conceptual Micro-Comparative Law: Objectives, Methods and Instruments”. The event then concluded with a lively reception, offering participants the opportunity to connect and reflect. It is safe to say that the first edition of NLSC has been a great success. We wish to thank all participants and look forward to next year!