Frank Herbert’s magnum opus Dune presented itself as not only an allegory regarding the power of religious belief, but also as a warning to when actors—in pursuit of resources— ignore their quests’ impact on the environment and people. Just like how the extraction of spice in Arrakis comes at the detriment of the environment and the Fremen, the extraction of critical raw materials may further put pressure on an already drained planet Earth. The question of critical raw materials was always at the back of my mind throughout the 2026 Warwick Economic Summit, as many guest speakers spoke of the possibility of strategic economic growth and diversification that is environmentally sustainable. Indeed, the extraction of critical raw materials, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, “are essential for digitalization, for renewable energy technologies, and for the further deployment of electric vehicles.”However, environmentally sustainable growth and economic diversification presents many ethical considerations; weighing in questions of mining practices, indigenous rights and geopolitical power balances.
Critical raw materials are essential to the environmental transition. Since the technology necessary for building sustainable energy infrastructure (such as solar panels or wind turbines) requires critical raw materials, they have become crucial for states’ ambitions of reaching a net-zero emissions goal. With demand for these resources expected to increase in the following decades due to increasing demand for renewable energy, the question of critical raw materials’ sourcing has become more relevant. Indeed, the mining of these materials has raised many questions on the ethics behind their use. As raw materials extraction has been offshored to countries of the global south (such as Chile, Brazil, Guinea, and the Democratic Republic of Congo), there has been a perpetuation of socio-environmental inequality in these regions. For example, according to a report made by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the open pit mining of copper in Chile is mainly concentrated in the arid regions of the state, thus demanding significant water resources. This leaves water scarcity as a major issue for these regions. With water pollution caused by copper mining, the discharge and extraction of these metals has caused threats to the ecosystem and local populations’ health.
Furthermore, the extraction of critical raw materials has been at the detriment of indigenous populations. According to a report by Friends of the Earth Europe and other organizations, 80% of lithium mining projects and more than half of nickel, copper and zinc projects are in the territories of indigenous peoples. Therefore, the environmental pollution caused by these extraction operations disproportionally impacts indigenous populations. According to indigenous activist Claudia Andrea Huircan, the extraction of critical raw materials in Chile ignores the indigenous populations’ rights and displaces them, leaving them with low-paid work or even forced labor. We can therefore observe this socio-environmental paradox associated with critical raw materials. Whilst, according to Global Energy Lead at the WWF and WES guest speaker Dean Cooper, one “needs a source of Critical Raw Materials”, when it comes to the sustainable energy transition, questions on these materials’ extraction must be raised, as they further unethical mining practices and violate human rights.
The extraction processes also risk exacerbating post-colonial geopolitical relations. Indeed, the EU’s emphasis on diversification of critical raw materials’ supply, according to scholar Sanja Bogojević, may “perpetuate colonial legacies” both on an international stage (as it encourages extractive colonial practices in the global south for the economic betterment of European states) and on an EU domestic level (with the extraction of resources in the Sámi territories in northern Sweden). In addition, the significant presence of China as a major refiner of critical raw materials, despite being labelled by British economist Shanker Singham as just market supply distortions, also reflects larger geopolitical dynamics. This further highlights China’s increasing control over the supply and production of European states’ security and sustainable energy infrastructure, leaving them vulnerable to supply-side shocks. As British economist Vicky Pryce stated in the WES protectionism debate panel, governments are “using trade as a weapon” and China’s supply distortion of refined critical minerals reflect continuing shifts in global geopolitical power dynamics.
Overall, there is a paradox found in the extraction of critical raw materials. As Dean Cooper highlighted, whilst the material is necessary in the environmental transition of energy supplies, the unethical sourcing of critical raw materials must be addressed.
Bogojević, Sanja. “The European Green Deal, the Rush for Critical Raw Materials, and Colonialism.” Transnational Legal Theory, vol. 15, no. 4, 16 Sept. 2024, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2024.2399408.
De Haes, Sabine, et al. SOCIAL IMPACTS of MINING CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS Challenges and Entry Points for Governance Social Impacts of Mining Critical Raw Materials. Challenges and Entry Points for Governance. Corresponding Authors Author(S). 2025.
Wuisan, Lindsey, et al. Strategic Projects under the Critical Raw Materials Act: The Socio-Environmental Risks of Fast-Tracking Mining Projects. Dec. 2024.
On the evening of March 22, the results came in from Le Havre. Much more than a local competition, the municipal race functioned as a de facto U.S.-style primary for the French presidency. Édouard Philippe had said so himself: Win here, else he shouldn’t bother running for president.
Candidates
The candidate landscape in 2026 was consolidated to three primary blocs:
The centre-right incumbent majority “Le Havre!” led by Édouard Philippe.
“Le Havre!” emphasised the professional competence and pragmatic policymaking with a balanced list of political veterans and civil society figures. Furthermore, it leveraged Philippe’s incumbency and former roles as Prime Minister and president of Horizons, and his stated condition for running in the 2027 presidential election.
The unified left “Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre” led by Jean-Paul Lecoq.
“Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre” (Living better together in Le Havre) was the main contender to the incumbent. The party integrated the French Communist Party (PCF), the Socialist Party (PS), the Ecologists (EELV) and citizen lists. Its main promise was built on a critique of the “Philippe Model” that heavily prioritises urban attractiveness and economic growth, calling instead for more social justice, ecological sustainability and social protection.
The far-right alliance “LE HAVRE D’ABORD” led by Franck Keller.
“LE HAVRE D’ABORD” (Le Havre First) was the far-right coalition of the Union des Droites pour la République (UDR) and the Rassemblement National (RN). They emphasised socially conservative values, having called for tighter security and immigration policies.
In addition, several fringe parties failed to cross the threshold required to advance to the second round, namely:
The standalone left “Le Havre Insoumis” led by Charlotte Boulogne, and
The participatory citizens’ collective “La Ville est à Vous” led by Marie Le Cieux.
National Significance
A unique feature of the 2026 Le Havre elections was that the central debate, rather than focusing strictly on local municipal governance, revolved around Édouard Philippe’s candidacy for president in 2027. In political science, municipal elections are frequently theorized as “second-order elections,” contests in which the stakes are lower than national ballots, and where voters often utilize their vote to express dissatisfaction with the central government. Yet, the 2026 Le Havre election effectively inverted this model.
On Dec. 8, 2025, Édouard Philippe declared on the channel La Chaîne Info (LCI), “Si j’échouais à convaincre les Havrais […], je ne serais pas dans une bonne position pour espérer convaincre les Français” (If I failed to convince the people of Le Havre […], I would not be in a good position to hope to convince the French people.) In effect, Édouard Philippe had elevated his re-election to a “condition sine qua non” (essential condition) for his 2027 presidential ambitions. Consequently, the local contest was nationalized by the media and all the candidates themselves, as coverage of the Le Havre elections was seen on major national media, including both Le Monde and CNews.
It is clear that, as a significant presidential contender, the March 2026 municipal victory would be crucial for Édouard Philippe. Indeed, it will provide a twelve-month ramp to launch a national campaign with the administrative and political resources of a major city at his disposal. Furthermore, the municipal seat serves as a territorial anchor that will guard against accusations of being disconnected from the realities of the ground, a great concern that the French public has of politicians.
Outcomes
In the first round, the results were as follows:
List
Mayor Candidate
% Votes Received
% of Registered Voters
Le Havre!
Édouard Philippe
43.76
22.47
Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre
Jean-Paul Lecoq
33.25
17.07
LE HAVRE D’ABORD
Franck Keller
15.30
7.86
Le Havre Insoumis
Charlotte Boulogne
4.00
2.05
La Ville est à Vous
Marie Le Cieux
1.98
1.02
Abstention Rate (% of registered voters who did not vote) = 47.58%Blank Ballot Rate (% of registered voters who cast a blank vote) = 1.07%
Table 1: Round 1 Election Results
“Le Havre Insoumis” and “La Ville est à Vous,” among other small lists, received less than 5% of votes, and were therefore not allowed to form coalitions or progress to round 2.
In the second round, the results were as follows:
List
Mayor Candidate
% Votes Received
% of Registered Voters
Le Havre!
Édouard Philippe
47.71
25.16
Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre
Jean-Paul Lecoq
41.17
21.71
LE HAVRE D’ABORD
Franck Keller
11.12
5.86
Abstention Rate (% of registered voters who did not vote) = 46.28%Blank Ballot Rate (% of registered voters who cast a blank vote) = 0.99%
Table 2: Round 2 Election Results
Although “Le Havre!” did not receive an absolute majority, it prevailed in the second round with a relative majority. Yet, the low voter turnout and the failure to achieve an absolute majority reflects the underlying scepticism toward the incumbent administration.
Below is the final seat distribution in the city council:
List
Mayor Candidate
Number of Seats
% of Seats
Le Havre!
Édouard Philippe
44
74.57
Mieux Vivre Ensemble au Havre
Jean-Paul Lecoq
12
20.34
LE HAVRE D’ABORD
Franck Keller
3
5.08
Total Number of Seats = 59
Table 3: City Council Seat Distribution Outcome
Thanks to the prime majoritaire (majority bonus) system that automatically gives the winning party 50% of seats, the “Le Havre!” list got the vast majority of seats.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Philippe won the “primaries,” and got the rewards: 12 months, a major city’s resources and the visible legitimacy he wanted. Yet, whether Le Havre’s voters — nearly three-quarters of whom did not cast a ballot for him — see it quite the same way is another question.
“Being President of Sciences Po is much more difficult than whatever I did in the past,” Sciences Po President Luis Vassy stated as part of his introductory remarks to an open discussion session with students of the Le Havre campus on April 16. President Vassy was joined by Dean of the Undergraduate College Jeanne Lazarus and later by President of Region Normandy Hervé Morin.
As stated by Campus Director Michael Hauchecorne’s email to students on April 13, the conference was intended to provide a “genuine opportunity for exchanging with the Director” as well as to commemorate the inauguration of the campus cafeteria and student association room. The event involved two Q&A sessions: one open to all students in the grand amphitheatre and the second limited to association delegates and year representatives in the library. In between, two artistic performances by BDA offered respite, as well as the official unveiling of a plaque in the common room with President Morin.
[image of plaque + short description] The construction of the campus cafeteria and student association room was “significantly supported” by the Normandy Region of up to €160,000, according to Director Hauchecorne.
This was the second time President Vassy visited the Le Havre campus since his appointment to the position in 2024. During his tenure, Sciences Po’s institutional policies have faced criticisms from some students. Direct mobilisations took place across multiple branch campuses, particularly to contest Sciences Po partnerships with Israeli universities. According to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), these Israeli universities are “participating in the genocide, colonisation and occupation in Palestine”. Continued ties with such institutions make Sciences Po complicit in such oppression, they say.
To further heighten tensions, two days prior to the conference on April 14 “approximately fifty students” faced judicial consequences for occupying the Boutmy amphitheatre on the Paris campus, according to an email sent by President Vassy on the same day. The students were mobilizing alongside other universities in protest of the proposed “Loi Yadan”, which has since been withdrawn on April 16.
These concerns came to a head during the Q&A sessions, with students voicing their thoughts on a wide range of topics, including academics, student life and support and freedom of student expression at Sciences Po.
Continue reading to find Le Dragon Dechaine’s recap of the day’s events, including interviews with key figures.
Summary of the Open Q&A Session Between Director Vassy, Dean Lazarus and the Student Body
By 11:00 a.m., the grand amphitheatre was nearly filled to the brim with students — many of whom were brought in by their foreign language teachers during what would have otherwise been their regularly scheduled morning classes. Nonetheless, an air of anticipation hung over the audience as Director Hauchecorne took the stage.
In his opening speech, Director Hauchecorne emphasized the collective nature of the day’s events and thanked all involved groups for making the necessary preparations. The campus band LHarmony was welcomed to the stage to represent the distinct musical identity of Le Havre.
[image of LHarmony + description]. LHarmony members Felix Franco-Rogelio (saxophone), Minbi Roux (flute), Camille Platon (violin) and Angelia Faye (piano) received roaring applause for their performance.
After President Vassy and Dean Lazarus took their seats on the center stage, the Year Representatives began a brief presentation to introduce the rest of Le Havre’s unique campus culture. 1A Year Representative Tallulah McEnroe noted that more than 60% of students at the Le Havre branch are international students, the highest proportion across all Sciences Po campuses. Also noted was the growing popularity of the campus and its Asia-Pacific minor, with 30 more students in the current 1A cohort in comparison to the current 2A cohort. After an overview of the several student associations shaping student life on campus, the proud and close-knit campus spirit was demonstrated with a rousing cheer of “Ici c’est Le Havre!”
Next to speak was 2A Year Representative Benjamin Henderson who outlined the structure and rules of the moderated discussion. After conducting surveys on several topics, the decision was made to implement a one-minute question, two-minutes response system in order to facilitate a smooth flow across the wide range of issues expected to be covered. After the time runs out, a quick poll by means of thumbs-up, thumbs-down or thumbs to the side will allow the year reps to know if a certain topic necessitates further discussion via email or other modes of communication.
“I think my goal, and the goal of the other Year Reps today, was to try to create the most favorable conditions for a productive conversation,” Henderson said in an interview with LDD after the event. “And I think in that endeavor, we succeeded.”
The topics of conversation were as follows: Topic 1: Academics, Topic 2: Student Life and Support, Topic 3: Freedom of Expression.
Before moving to the open Q&A session, President Vassy was given the opportunity to make his own introductory speech. President Vassy briefly touched upon his background as a career diplomat working in the United States and the Netherlands before joining the administration of Sciences Po over a year and a half ago. As this was his second visit to the Le Havre campus during his tenure, President Vassy claimed that our campus and Sciences Po as a whole has undergone a small evolution. The reputation and impact of the Sciences Po brand name has grown stronger overseas, particularly in the United States and in China. Vassy credits this stellar reputation to the quality of students entering Sciences Po in addition to the unique practice and teaching provided by the curriculum. Since the past year, Le Havre now has a 33% increase in international applications overall with the most significant increases being made in Indian, American and Chinese applications. Food access has also improved with the construction of the cafeteria over the previous summer. Thus, Vassy concludes, it is his goal to continue utilizing this strategy of “excellence and openness” to expand internationally and socially.
“Sometimes of course like any human endeavour we are not perfect but we should sometimes notice what we do well,” President Vassy said.
Topic 1: Academics
The first question was in regards to the variation in teaching quality on campus, asking what the criteria for teachers is when hiring. President Vassy responded that the administration holds a clear line in trying to attain the maximum quality of teaching for students, through the use of evaluations and outside faculty. President Vassy also added that on the train to Le Havre, he and Dean Lazarus were looking at the student evaluations of teachers, promising to bring consequences next year. Finally, he noted that lecturers should be provided academic freedom so the criteria most consequential for him would be work and intensity of preparation, in addition to their pedagogy and ability to teach. The student then indicated with thumbs up that the issue felt resolved.
Next, a question was raised if changes to the current curriculum — which was criticized for being either too Euro-centric or East-Asian centered — would focus on other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Dean Lazarus responded by explaining how the new curriculum would include more spots for the minor as opposed to being between other courses, providing more opportunities for broader courses. At the same time she did state some limitations in being able to offer lectures on specific countries and specific issues due to the campus focus being on three quarters of the world. She briefly concluded by thanking the student for the reminder, with the student indicating they would prefer continuation and follow up on this topic. Director Hauchecorne also briefly noted that two new lectures will be added to the geographical minor in the second year, with Dean Lazarus again stating that the goal of the bachelor level courses is to provide a broad exploration of the region as opposed to precise locational study (which is more reserved for the masters level).
The third question was more particular to the law courses offered, with a student first stating that the current legal classes are more oriented towards legal positivism without as much diversity of views as other fields, before asking if there are any plans to improve the diversity of law classes. President Vassy stated in brief that the reform of the bachelor curriculum would result in more freedom of course choice. He also stated that the course “Thinking Like A Lawyer” is meant to be positivist as it is based on a book written by professor Sebastian Clement, though the faculty of the Sciences Po law school has greater representation of critical legal studies.
As the time ran up for this topic, Year Representative Benjamin clarified that those who gave a thumbs down will be sent an email to further discuss their questions.
Topic 2: Student Life and Support
2A Year Representative Anh Nguyen began the discussion on this topic by presenting statistics from a poll of 75 students out of the 300+ students on campus.
The first question in this section focused on why arts clubs are not provided credits while sports clubs are, despite the similar hours of dedication required. Dean Lazarus explained that in the coming reform all credits such as sports credits will be “completely optional” meaning that they will not count for graduation requirements to enter the second and third years.
“I’m not sure if it’s an answer that will please you, but in fact everybody’s going to be equal on that,” Dean Lazarus said.
Year Representative Benjamin followed up to ask what the point of putting the credit on a transcript would be if the credits did not count. Dean Lazarus stated that if it was up to her there would not be any credits allocated for these reasons as she believed students could still participate in sports and arts clubs regardless of whether or not credits were recognized.
The next question asked was also on this topic asking if the administration did not wish for student and artistic life to be recognized — resulting in applause from the student body. President Vassy simply said that their work is recognized, just not through credits. Director Hauchecorne stated that a possible alternative would be the degree supplement which could list the activities, commitments and participation of students on campus even without credits.
“I can guarantee to you in just one sentence, and I understand the question, but I can guarantee to you that I have recruited lots of people in my life,” President Vassy said. “It’s not really the number of credits that will count… Knowing that you have one or two credits I don’t think has a huge impact on the way people will view your engagement in these activities.”
A student then asked why the administration had made the decision to pull and redistribute profits from vending machines from all campuses rather than directly from just each campus individually, especially without consulting students of the Le Havre campus. After applause from students, President Vassy stated that he had not been aware of that decision and gave a more general answer saying that trade offs are difficult. He also suggested students interested in the vision he has for Sciences Po, including participatory budgets for students, to read the 10 page program he proposed for the university when elected president.
The last question asked for this topic was if a specific time in the schedule could be made to allow for clubs and associations to host events such as interviews with external speakers as students in Le Havre may be unable to visit Paris each time a noteworthy guest such as Ukrainian President Zelensky visited Sciences Po. President Vassy said that he could not specifically answer about the scheduling of external interventions but was proud of collectively being able to be a university that has the capacity to invite such important speakers. He also said while the seven campus organization was a constraint, when external speakers came to Paris it was transmitted and broadcasted to other campuses. Director Hauchecorne said that it was disappointing when only a few people could attend events hosted by organizations in the past year and said that a dedicated slot would have to come with the exchange of more dedicated commitment from the part of students.
Topic 3: Freedom of Expression
This discussion began with a question regarding the occupation of the Boutmy amphitheater, asking why the administration decided on punishments for protestors involving the use of police, fines and reporting on judicial records, instead of open dialogue. After roaring applause from students, President Vassy answered, speaking for more than the allotted time, by emphasising that in Sciences Po any legal view can be expressed. In the case of the Boutmy amphitheater blockade, he said, this was not an act of free speech but rather paralysed the institution, without any space of discussion. Vassy explained that attempts to speak to the protestors were rejected, leading him to take the decision to ask external police to interfere. He said that no sanctions were brought by administration on involved students, but that the punishments mentioned were given by the police, who Sciences Po has no control over. Vassy concluded saying that he will continue to make sure that Sciences Po is a space for everyone, highlighting how many students feel their own freedom of expression is hampered by only one view point being pushed forward by protestors. Many students gave him a thumbs down to this response.
Nathan, a member of SJP, later reflects on this answer, saying in an LDD interview, “I feel unsatisfied with all of the answers that Luis Vassy provided because we asked a lot of questions and he never answered. His points were always outside the questions so it was a bit deceptive for us.”
Such sentiments were reflected in a next question, directly asking President Vassy if the police pushing students during the Boutmy blockade seemed like a proportionate action to the peaceful protest. President Vassy answered by saying that he is not a policeman, and that he doesn’t know the methods behind moving people who don’t want to be moved. He continued, explaining that no one is happy to see police on campus, but that there was simply no other option in this situation, having already tried other ways in previous blockades.
The same student then asked him why Sciences Po doesn’t stop its partnerships with Israeli universities, again accompanied by student applause. President Vassy replied by saying that unlike with the case of Russia, no sanctions have been placed on Israel, and that therefore, Sciences Po has no legal obligation to cut its ties. The purpose of universities is to have ideas circulate within a legal framework, Vassy explained. Another student continued this discussion, asking if Sciences Po would accept an investigation group in the ties between Israeli universities and the occupation of Palestine. President Vassy answered by repeating that Sciences Po is about openness. He said that policies like cutting ties and investigation groups are extreme, asking “where do we draw the line?” as he cited the example of the alleged links between universities in the United States of America and the American defense government. A third student however pushed Vassy on this issue, specifically asking Sciences Po to cut ties with the Hebrew University in East Jerusalem, which the student said is internationally recognised as having illegally occupied Palestinian land. President Vassy emphasised that any actions by Sciences Po doesn’t equate to endorsement of Israeli foreign policy, and that as a former diplomat he is well aware of what is considered legal and illegal. Vassy concluded by saying that Sciences Po is just a university and not an instrument of foreign policy, with the sole mission of education and research.
Discussions related to this topic produced the most reactions among the student body, as well as the longest questions and answers, reflecting tensions at Sciences Po. Director Hauchecorne reflects on these exchanges related to Israel and freedom of expression in a later interview with LDD, saying “I hope that students will have appreciate that and they tried to put some point across to some of the guests, and they’ve challenged them to some extent, but still, it’s good to say something when you disagree and what you want to put your point across, but it’s good also to listen to the answers and to see why sometimes not everyone is seeing in the same lenses as you.”
The Q&A session was closed by a final musical performance by Lora Zaiss and Thibaud Brilland, before leaving the stage for President Morin.
Summary of the Closed Q&A Between Director Vassy, Dean Lazarus and Student Leaders
President Vassy’s visit continued with a smaller and unmoderated Q&A session in the library with student association and year representatives. Accompanied by Dean Lazarus and Director Hauchecorne, all sitting comfortably on blue sofa chairs, the three answered questions on various topics, and learned about campus life in Le Havre. Indeed, the session began with a short presentation by Téa Fayet and Anis Loghmari, the Co-Presidents of the Comite d’Organisation des Collegiades (COC), the organising committee of the inter-campus art and sports competition hosted in Le Havre this year. They emphasised the importance of such events for bringing campuses closer together and for creating ties with local partnerships in the city. Yet, the majority of the session focused on the frustrations and lack of accountability felt by student representatives regarding the Sciences Po administration. Below we present the three key topics that were discussed the longest.
Topic 1: The Importance of Academic Workload Versus Campus Life
The Q&A session started with Director Vassy asking student representatives if they were feeling overall happy with their studies and experience in Le Havre. He spoke on how Sciences Po is known for its high academic standards, mentioning how many exchange students have told him they feel more academically challenged here than in their home universities. 2A Year Representative Anh Nguyen echoed such sentiments, saying that data from a poll collected by year representatives shows that many students find it difficult to strike a balance between their studies and personal lives. She however emphasised the importance of campus spirit for mental and social health, an almost unanimous result in the poll.
A Bureau Des Arts (BDA) representative delved further into this topic, saying that the importance given to campus life often places a lot of pressure on student leaders, who organise many events, but struggle to keep up with all their school work. They said that because of this, the lack of recognition from administration can be frustrating, particularly regarding the arts in comparison to sports, with the latter at least receiving some credits. Student life makes Le Havre liveable, they repeated, arguing that students mostly find connections in the campus community rather than in the city. Dean Lazarus took the lead in answering them, saying that real recognition comes from the student body and from what student leaders create, not from credits. She continued to explain how the new reforms arriving to Sciences Po will ensure that academic life comes first. This discussion garnered many reactions from listeners, with President Vassy barely containing a grin as he commented that Dean Lazarus is a very strict academic dean.
Topic 2: The Lack of Dialogue on the Relationship Between Sciences Po and Israel
A recurring topic in recent years, a member of SJP directly asked President Vassy on the lack of action by Sciences Po administration on the genocide in Palestine. Particularly, they questioned why President Vassy was against true discussion with students, saying that this lack of dialogue is one of the reasons student activists feel the need for stronger actions in search for reactions from administration. In response, President Vassy said that the administration is unable to fulfill all of the demands made by student activists, as Sciences Po has a wider, academic mission, involving not just students but also stakeholders. He further explained that the student protest on the Paris campus that week had clearly refused any attempts of discussion. He concluded by saying that he has been facing an unprecedented level of personal hatred, reflecting on how this broader trend of personalising issues to target individuals is a part of a modern unhealthy political culture.
Topic 3: The Heavy Responsibility of SGBV (VSS) Prevention on Associations
A third major topic was sparked with a BDA representative’s reflections on the pressures created by the complete delegation of SGBV (sexual and gender based-violence) or in French, VSS (violences sexuelles et sexistes), prevention on association representatives. While they say that Sciences Po has greatly helped with the training of such student leaders, they feel that ultimately it is left up to association representatives to act as the police, which is a heavy burden to carry. President Vassy responded to these concerns, stating that Sciences Po can always improve and highly prioritises the issue of VSS prevention with a zero tolerance policy. He repeated that the current structure of having student leaders act as VSS referents, as well as training first-years, was created in collaboration with Sciences Po’s feminist clubs, forming one of France’s most comprehensive VSS prevention programs. Director Hauchecorne chimed in, saying that having student leaders as VSS referents during events has been very effective.
The issue was taken up again towards the end of the Q&A by a Bureau Des Elèves (BDE) representative, who thanked the administration for their help in creating training programs, but asked if it was possible for more sessions. They explained that association members are often the first responders, and that therefore they feel that more sessions focusing on practical advice would be useful. Again, President Vassy highlighted his willingness for improvements and adjustments. The discussion concluded with Dean Lazarus stating that student leaders should not feel in charge of VSS prevention, but rather as a bridge between victims and experts.
Conclusion
In sum, this was an eventual day of discussions, covering a wide variety of topics. While in some cases inconclusive, it provided a chance for students to voice their concerns directly to President Vassy. In turn, he had the opportunity to get to know the Le Havre campus better.
The weekend of Feb. 20 to 22 was full of enthusiasm and excitement in the hallways and classrooms of the Le Havre campus, due to the Le Havre Model United Nations (LHMUN) 2026 conference. This year’s edition started on Feb. 20 with an opening ceremony which included an address from former British Army Officer General Sir Rupert Smith, senior commander in the Gulf and Bosnian Wars. It was also an official welcome to delegates from different schools and countries who came to Le Havre to attend the conference.
Following the opening ceremony, committees began their sessions debating various issues from human trafficking to the war on drugs. The topics were centered around this year’s theme of global security, especially focusing on times of crises. This year saw eight committees ranging from the Economic and Social Council to the Human Rights Council. Fitting to the Le Havre campus, an Association of Southeast Asian Nations and International Maritime Organization committees were also included, highlighting our focus on Asia and the seas and oceans.
The Game of Thrones committee garnered the most attention, as delegates represented characters from the famous TV show and debated the issue “Who rules Westeros?” It was also attended by the director of Le Havre Campus, Michael Hauchecorne, who officiated a fictional wedding.
Academically, the conference was operated in both French and English and was open to delegates with different experience levels. Mariam Abdul, Chair of the Human Rights Committee and a Master’s student at Paris-Saclay University, said that delegates worked very well and that the speeches were phenomenal, making it hard to choose who to award Best Delegate.
The Chairs of the Security Council, Camille Ostrowski and Natália Oliveira, however said in their interview that delegates were getting tired and demotivated over the course of the conference. Luckily for the delegates, the breaks and the multiple events organised throughout the conference helped regain energy and excitement throughout the conference. Snacks were provided during the breaks in between sessions every day, and the Amnesty International and UNICEF clubs also held a fundraiser bake sale to donate to UNICEF. An Amnesty International member, Marie Graille, said that the MUN conference allowed them to reach beyond the Le Havre campus.
The two nights of the conference were both eventful, as a bar night was held on Friday night, and a Gala was held on Saturday, where many students dressed up and enjoyed the night at La Grande École. The conference concluded the following day with a lively ceremony on campus, during which Chairs distributed awards to their best delegates and the MUNSHU board bowed to the public.
Fun, amusing, engaging, enlightening, passionate, unforgettable, an investment in the future — all these words were used by the delegates to describe the LHMUN experience. Delegate and first-year student of Le Havre campus Hannah Schepers (Human Rights Council) said that doing research and reading in between the lines to understand a country’s stance can sometimes become a headache. Another delegate and fellow first-year student Erika Nanette (Human Rights Council) added to that, saying there is a thin line between being too diplomatic and misrepresenting the country; however, such challenges are welcome, as they allow students to discuss previously lesser-known topics. Similarly, delegate and first-year student David Cretu (Economic and Social Council) agreed that, in such an environment, it can be stressful to find a compromise; but to secure world peace, one has to practice it. This year’s LHMUN also welcomed eager students from high schools in Rouen and Luxembourg. Even though they had different past experiences, all students agreed that they loved the campus for its diverse voices and its ability to put in the effort, even if getting the best deal for their country might not be the greatest outcome for the rest of the world.
The Secretary General, Franzcesca Chiara De La Cruz, entered the interview with a heart full of gratitude, calling LHMUN a chaotic and enriching experience, as seeing it carried out in life sometimes felt surreal. The organiser thanked the team, the administration of SciencesPo, and the sponsors for helping to make this event happen, despite the administrative bumps along the way. When asked whether MUN holds a special place in her heart, the Secretary General responded with a smile, emphasising that the most beautiful thing about MUN is the sense of collectiveness created as they strive to find solutions to pertinent issues and meet people from different walks of life, especially Sciences Po students from other campuses. From overthrowing a republic to dance punishments: mixing goofiness with recent events is what makes MUN stand out. As an organiser, Chiara mentioned that she has complete confidence in the upcoming board and wishes them well, asking them to stay organised and maintain the relationships they have established this year.
For organisers and participants alike, LHMUN was an experience like no other. From solving world crises to weddings and galas, this event witnessed it all. Once again, it was the organising team who made it come to life and all the participants from different places engaging in it who became the driving force behind the event.
“You develop a kind of sensitivity, almost like an extra sense, that allows you to connect with people even without sharing the same language,” said Isabelle Letelie when asked to describe the challenge, and enrichment, her volunteering missions around the world have posed.
Vibrant, curious and radiant, she left an indelible mark on the beginning of my university experience: her desire to travel, her curiosity about other cultures and her commitment to volunteering are the perfect ingredients for an interview–one I hope will render justice to the unique persona she is.
With a steaming coffee in front of us and the sun still down, she opened up about her latest missions and motives behind them.
“I find it very enriching to do things that are not paid, to give your time freely, and to work with people you would probably never meet otherwise. Last year, I went to India with an organization, then to Cambodia, and also to Morocco during the summer, with the same French organization that organizes medical missions. Then in October, I went back to Morocco independently to join people I had met earlier—especially a woman who organizes an artistic and humanitarian caravan in villages in the High Atlas, near Ouarzazate. I really fell in love with the country, Amazing culture, and the people I met there, which is why I wanted to return and be part of that project”
Did you notice cultural differences being an obstacle to establishing relationships with locals?
I think that from the moment you choose to go on this kind of mission, you have to accept that it will be destabilizing—and that’s actually the point. You need to be curious and open to stepping outside your comfort zone. Of course, it’s not always easy, but that’s exactly why it’s so valuable. It pushes you to question your habits, your way of thinking, and your way of living. Once you let go and accept that you won’t always understand everything, it becomes incredibly enriching. So yes, it’s difficult, but that’s also what makes it so great.
When you say “accepting that you won’t always understand anything” do you also refer to the preponderant language barrier?
The language barrier can be difficult to overcome, however when I went to India and Cambodia, I was with a French organization, and we had translators, which made things much easier.
This time will be different, because I’ll be spending 15 days alone in India. And when I’ve tried speaking English with Indians before, I found the accent quite challenging—so that’s a bit of an unknown for me.
That said, I have a friend who traveled around the world for a year and a half and barely spoke English, and she told me it was never really a problem. She said you always find ways to communicate, and that she developed a new ability to understand people beyond language.
We know that non-verbal communication represents a huge part of how we connect: that’s one of the most amazing things about traveling—you learn to communicate differently, not just through words.
That’s also why I enjoy speaking English, even if I’m not fluent. It forces you to think differently, to observe more, to pay attention to details in others. You develop a kind of sensitivity, almost like an extra sense, that allows you to connect with people even without sharing the same language.
Was there, perhaps, a particular encounter that marked you the most?
Yes, definitely. The most meaningful encounter was with the woman leading the caravan. I had already met her in July, and she’s the reason I decided to come back. She created what she calls the “Caravan of Love.” For me, she represents a powerful counterexample to the stereotypes we often have in France about Moroccan Muslim women.
In France, there are still many prejudices about veiled women and about Islam. Meeting her completely challenged those assumptions. She was very different from what I had imagined or what we often hear back home. That encounter was really the most impactful and decisive for me.
Could you guide me through what a typical day looks like during these missions?
The caravan lasted one week and moved from village to village. The idea was to offer performances, artistic workshops, and distribute donations such as school supplies, clothes and household items. We were about twenty people, traveling by car with a small truck carrying all the equipment.
In the morning, we would travel to the next village, depending on the distance. When we arrived, there was always a welcoming protocol: we were received by local associations and village representatives, and we would share tea together, which is an important cultural moment in Morocco.
In the afternoon, we organized workshops. I personally led painting workshops with children, and there were also sports activities. Lunch could last up to four hours, so the daily rhythm was quite different from what we are used to.
In the evening, from around 8 p.m. until sometimes 1 a.m., there was a big show for the whole village. There were performances for children—clowns, singers—as well as interactive games involving adults. It was a series of acts throughout the evening, and at the end, we distributed school supplies to the children. At the end of the day, there was always something special. For example, each day they would give a washing machine to a woman in the village who was particularly in need. There were also small gifts for the games and prizes for participants. Then there was a kind of closing ceremony where each child was called one by one, with photos and a really warm, communal atmosphere.
After that, we would eat together, and then go to bed. And the next morning, we would set off again for another village.
Looking ahead, could you imagine living more permanently in one of these countries and helping a community over a longer period of time?
In Morocco, yes—I’m starting to think about it. When I first came back, my idea was more to travel frequently but to different places each time, and that’s still part of my plan. For example, I’m planning to stay in France in January and February, then leave again for a month in March. I don’t yet know where, but I really want to go back to Morocco.
So now I’m looking into what I could do there—maybe develop projects, get more involved.
Would that be the case, how would you reconcile it with your private life?
I do have some family constraints, especially because I need to take care of my mother, who is ill, so I can’t move abroad permanently.
But for the first time, I’m thinking differently. I’m not old, but I’ve started to imagine what it would be like to live and even grow older somewhere else. Traveling has made me realize how big the world is and how much there is to learn. I think one of my main qualities is curiosity—I like being challenged, I like being destabilized.
And now, I can’t really imagine my life without that anymore, without leaving France regularly. I’ve also started to see the limits of the Western lifestyle, and I don’t always feel aligned with certain aspects of my own culture anymore. So yes, it’s definitely something I’m considering.
I know you are a published writer, have you ever thought of writing a book either inspired by or documenting such experiences?
That’s something people often suggest, but no—not really. When I’m there, I just want to experience everything fully. For example, I usually love reading, but I can’t even read when I’m on these missions.
That said, this time will be a bit different. I’ll be doing 15 days of medical mission and then 15 days of traveling on my own, which is something I’ve never done before. So I do have a small writing project in mind—something semi-fictional.
I’ll probably share things on Instagram, and maybe develop something more from that experience. We’ll see.
If you could give advice to your past self before going on your first mission, what would it be?
I would say: just dare.
There’s a phrase that really stayed with me after Morocco: “Jump, and the net will appear.” I love it, and it has become a kind of personal mantra for me.
Before leaving, you have to accept that you will be destabilized. You have to be ready to strip away your certainties, in a way—and that’s not easy. That’s exactly what makes the experience so valuable.
