Chatting with Seline Trevisanut

Welcome to the latest interview of the Völkerrechtsblog’s symposium ‘The Person behind the Academic’! With us we have Prof. Seline Trevisanut, and through the following questions, we will try to get a glimpse of her interests, sources of inspiration and habits.

Welcome Prof. Trevisanut and thank you very much for accepting our invitation!

May I first ask, as I usually do, what it was that brought you to academia and what was it that made you stay?

I got into academia by chance, I guess as many do. Neither of my parents went to university and I had never considered academia as a possible professional path until I spent a period at the University of Milan 20 years ago. At that time, I was a law student in my last year at Paris I, and I went to Milan thanks to the Erasmus exchange programme. I attended there the advanced course on international law taught by Professor Treves and his assistants. I had to write an essay for that course and the person who graded it was impressed by it. He then asked if I was interested in doing a PhD as there were going to be some positions available. I did not even know what that would entail, really, what a PhD was exactly. I asked around and the idea of being paid to study sounded amazing to me. It still does. I then graduated in Paris a few months later, moved to Milan, prepared for the entry exam for the doctoral school and, luckily enough, got in.

My family was a bit puzzled because they could not really understand the professional path I was taking. Consider that the PhD scholarship was lower than any entry-level salary I would have gotten in the private sector. They thought I would start working, not continue studying. I then told my dad that I wanted to ‘try’ academia for 10 years (I was 24 at that point). If it was not my calling, I would still have enough time to change the profession and most probably become a practicing lawyer.

During the PhD years, I discovered in-depth research, individual and group research, teaching and student supervision. And I liked it all. I am very grateful to my PhD supervisor, Prof. Treves, and his research group at the time who welcomed me and taught me academic writing, how to edit texts and books, to write research proposals and how to give feedback to students. I met some of the people who are now my best friends in those years.

If you were not an academic, what would you be?

If I had not spent my exchange period at the University of Milan, most probably I would be a lawyer in the private sector, as that is what I was supposed to do.

If I had not studied law, then there are several professions that I would be attracted to. I originally wanted to study philosophy or history, and I could see myself being a high school teacher somewhere. I have also always had a strong interest in art history. I would have liked to have a job connected to this.

Which are three texts that you would wish all academics working on international law would read?

To start somewhere, I would say that two works have particularly influenced the way in which I approach and work with international law. The first is Towards a New Economic Order by M. Bedjaoui. I first read it because of its chapter on the concept of ‘common heritage of mankind,’ but the whole book was eye-opening for me and thought-provoking. It defied mainstream approaches in international law discourse which are still prevailing in many sub-fields.

The second is In Fairness to Future Generations by E. Brown Weiss. This book was published in 1989 and it lays out most of the challenges we are discussing now through the prism of the Anthropocene and the climate crisis. Brown Weiss was innovative, and her book stands the test of time.

Lastly, I would recommend reading A. Grear, ‘Deconstructing Anthropos: A critical Legal Reflection an ‘Anthropocentric’ Law and Anthropocene ‘Humanity’’ (2015) Law Critique 225. In a nutshell, I particularly like this contribution because it very clearly shows the limitations of law in dealing with the natural environment and its needs. The core reason of this situation is that the subject (Anthropos) of the law is ‘not an embodied, corporeally ‘thick’, flesh and blood human being at all,’ but ‘a highly selective construct’ (Grear, at 237). When I read this contribution for the first time, it really triggered something. As someone working in the law of the sea and environmental law, I am used to confront myself with scientific data about the status of the environment, but both the law and the scientific data are of course abstractions, ‘representations’ of the physical world, which I knew, but stopped short of thinking through. How can we reconcile representations with the physicality of the environment? I do not have a straightforward answer to this, but this question is constantly in the back of my mind when I read or write about the natural environment.

Have you experienced or witnessed discrimination in academic circles? How have you reacted to these instances?

As a woman who started in academia at a relatively young age I have experienced and witnessed forms of discrimination and inappropriate behaviours. A couple of decades ago it was more difficult to react to those instances and there were not many avenues to report and even just to talk about what was happening. Fortunately, things are changing even if there is still a lot to do. Now, when I am involved in hiring and assessment procedures, I am very careful about any type of bias that influence the decision-making process. I usually speak up if I notice anything that could be problematic and try to rectify the situation together with the involved colleagues. But, to repeat, there is still a lot to be done on this, and the approach varies greatly between specific institutions, and even within them.

Have you ever felt your academic freedom restricted? How have you reacted to such restrictions?

In the last years, there is a push towards applied sciences, empirical research and societal impact of research, in particular through the available funding schemes at the national and EU levels. Those are, of course, very important, but should all do the same type of research? This leaves very little, if any, room for fundamental research and thus restrains the academic freedom of researchers. Over the years I have conducted some practice-oriented research and thus fit well in those schemes. But I also felt that I had to fit in those boxes to be able to do research. My room of manoeuvre, my possibility to experiment is then limited.

Research freedom is nowadays not only restricted through the types of research that are ‘allowed’ but also on the basis of the themes that researchers should work on. The idea of quite literally ‘programming’ research still alienates me. The system has a clear top-down approach that does not allow the interests and the imagination of researchers, in particular the early-career ones, to develop and blossom.

Which of your publications is your favourite one? And which of them is your least favourite?
This is a hard question because publications are ‘witnesses’ of a period of my life. There are however two publications I am maybe more attached to: ‘Is there a right to be rescued? A constructive view’ in Questions of International Law (2014), and the edited volume Regime Interaction in Ocean Governance (Brill 2020).

The first one condenses my main findings in the field of search and rescue services. I there argue that, from a joint reading of human rights and law of the sea obligations, a distress call creates a jurisdictional link between the people in distress who launch it and the state which receives it. It was very rewarding to see that this argument was used in front of the Human Rights Committee in a case against Italy. As a scholar you often wonder about the relevance of what you are doing, of the arguments you develop, of what you publish. That was an important personal confirmation for me.

The second one is one of the outcomes of my collaboration with N. Giannopoulos and R. Roland Holst at Utrecht University within the Sustainable Ocean project. That was the first research group I lead and was lucky enough to have wonderful colleagues. In the edited volume we not only revisit the law of the sea in light of relevant regime interaction theories but also propose our own approach to regime interaction. The volume is a testimony of that joint research and a reminder of an important step in my career.

As for the least favourite, I actually have a few and they are generally the ones that I had to finish abruptly, where I did not manage to fully develop the argument(s) I had in mind.

Have you ever drawn influence from any form of art in your work? Is there anything artistic about writing academic texts?

There is certainly something artistic in academic writing as it involves a creative process. From facts was born an idea that can then be expressed in different ways. When I start a new work, be it an article, a research grant application or a book, I have in my mind a sort of visual map of what I want to do. I think about it as a painting, or a mosaic, with colours and shapes. My father is a retired mosaicist and I have been exposed to that specific art form since I was small child. Mosaic has certainly influenced my way of thinking and making sense of what is around me.

What is your favourite place to read and write? What is always near you when you read and write?

For reading, at home, it would be in one of the old green armchairs which were those of my husband’s grandmother. They are just so comfortable, and you feel in a cocoon in them. I like also to read in parks and terrasses. For writing, at my desk, mainly at home.

While I am working, I always have some water, some coffee, pencils, post-its and a lipbalm.

What are you working on currently? What may we anticipate in the near future?

Among several ongoing commitments, I am working at a book on Sustainable Development and the Law with Prof. Angelica Bonfanti (University of Milan). This co-authored book will be published in the series Principles of International Environmental Law (E. Elgar) in 2026 (we hope). I am particularly enthusiastic about this project because of both the focus of the book and the esteemed colleague I am working with.

Thank you very much, Prof. Trevisanut, for participating in our symposium and for having taken the time to respond to our questions!