Fin 2019, la Chine est frappée par un nouveau cycle de transmission d’une maladie contagieuse émergente, le Covid-19, causée par le virus SARS-CoV-2. Le 11 mars 2020, et alors que le Covid-19 touche plus de cent pays, y compris les États membres de l’UE, l’OMS qualifie la situation de pandémie mondiale. À ce moment-là, il n’existe aucun traitement spécifique ni aucun vaccin contre la maladie. Les experts médicaux conseillent des mesures non pharmacologiques pour tenter de ralentir la propagation du virus, comme la suspension des voyages internationaux, la restriction à la circulation des personnes dans les territoires nationaux et la distanciation physique. Dans ce contexte d’incertitude, les États membres de l’Union européenne prennent de nombreuses mesures unilatérales, non coordonnées entre elles, y compris des restrictions à la circulation de personnes à l’intérieur de l’espace Schengen. Le début de la riposte européenne à la crise sanitaire est donc marqué par l’autonomie décisionnelle des États membres. Si l’on s’en tient à l’acquis juridique communautaire, on ne pouvait pas espérer beaucoup de la part de l’UE en matière d’intervention dans le domaine de la santé. Conformément à l’article 168 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE), les États membres sont responsables de la définition de leurs politiques de santé et de l’offre de services et soins médicaux sur leur territoire.  L’Union dispose seulement d’une « compétence d’appui » dans ce domaine. En juin 2020, la Commission européenne élabore pourtant une stratégie commune de l’Union en matière de vaccin. Cette note de synthèse a pour but de mieux comprendre ce retournement de situation.

The Synthetic Theory of Evolution contemplates a set of concepts and principles representing philosophical preconditions to be fulfilled to understand evolutionary phenomena. This philosophical framework is heterogeneous: its components derive from different lines of scientific thought and conceptual histories. We investigate the physical sciences’ assumptions that support the evolutionary thesis, especially the presence and use of the notion of cause and causality. Three dimensions are explored: epistemological, methodological, and formal. Through the epistemological analysis, we conclude that the evolutionary episteme is, in fact, based on physicality principles, especially on mechanical causality. Evolutionism uses explanations from the inorganic world to understand biological phenomena since its foundation. The most recent descriptions of heredity and genetic variation through physical-chemical reactions reinforce this influence. Through a methodological investigation, it is evidenced that the experimental-quantitative method is appropriate for studying biological phenomena when the objective is to find proximate (functional) causation. Nevertheless, when dealing with the ultimate (evolutionary) causation, the historical-comparative-observational method tends to become the main investigation instrument. Through the formal analysis of the logical and linguistic elements of evolutionism, we outlined its argumentative structure’s commitments with the naturalist-nomological assumptions of the physical sciences. There are evident regularities in biological phenomena. However, the concept of biological law needs to be nuanced by the description of its peculiar elements, such as the probabilistic character inherent in its application to repetitive phenomena, and the limited power to generalize operating rules when it comes to singular events.

The convergence of methods for producing scientific knowledge and creating new technologies is increasing among the fields of chemistry and biology, resulting in a newly shaped biotechnology. It is now possible to produce chemicals by using living beings, as well as to synthesize biological molecules through chemical processes. The technical developments that has allowed the approach of these two sciences is manifold: metabolic engineering; enzymatic engineering (biocatalysis); biopharming; traditional DNA-recombinant technology; Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology; DNA synthesis and semi-automatized peptide synthesis; “omics” technologies, such as genomics, transcriptomics, epigenomics, immunology, proteomics, metabolomics, and others. This paper argues that some parameters for regulating innovations in the field of biotechnology can start at the agenda of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Diplomacy towards the agenda of Defense Diplomacy. Surveillance considering exclusively security preoccupations can restrict access to essential technologies for various sectors of the economy, especially in developing countries, with no guarantees of additional security gains.

The growing interest of States in the exploration of the outer space urged the international society to forge the norms and the institutions that make up the current Space Law. In this process of regulating the space regime, three evolutionary stages were identified. In the first, from the creation of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), in 1959, until the celebration of the 1967 Space Treaty, the standardization resulted from soft law instruments. In the second, from 1967 to the 1979 Moon Treaty, the regime’s legal framework was built under five international treaties. In the third, in force until the present day, the regime was adjusted again only by means of non-binding rules, insufficient to meet the current determinants of international relations. By extrapolating this evolutionary sequence, the paper argues that currently there is strong evidence that the space regime is in a new transition phase. There is a need to regulate old unresolved issues, such as geostationary orbits and demilitarization of space, as well as dealing with new problems, such as space waste, commercial exploitation of natural resources, and space tourism. In the existing proposals to face these challenges, the seeds of future normative and institutional changes may be sheltered.