Proposal for Belgian Constitutional Reform: Rights of Nature, Digital Sovereignty and Participatory Democracy

Collaborative project supervised by the University Foundation and its Ethics Forum

Presentation to the Ethics Forum - December 4, 2025

This project proposes a Belgian constitutional reform articulated around three interdependent axes: recognition of fundamental rights of nature, public digital sovereignty, and democratic simplification.

The methodology is inspired by free software and Wikipedia processes: open collaborative writing, successive versions improved through debate, complete transparency, publication under CC-BY-SA license.

Project Leader: Nicolas Pettiaux, ASBL EduCode Planned Public Launch: EducaLibre 2026 (July 4-6, ULB Brussels)

Fundamental Principle: All life forms possess intrinsic value and equal dignity, independent of their utility for the human species.

Concrete Implications: - Constitutional protection of all green spaces, including urban ones - Human duty of non-harm toward nature, except in cases of demonstrated vital necessity - Right to legitimate protection of humans against natural dangers - Duty to restore damaged ecosystems - Legal personality for major ecosystems

Central Ethical Question: How to arbitrate conflicts of vital interests between species while affirming their equal intrinsic value?

Fundamental Principle: Public services and critical infrastructures exclusively use software and formats whose source code is accessible, modifiable and redistributable by all.

Concrete Implications: - Independence from technological multinationals - Permanent public auditability of critical systems - Viral sharing obligation: any improvement of a public tool remains public - Prohibition of monopolistic appropriation of resources financed by public funds - Constitutional protection of digital commons

Central Ethical Question: How to guarantee democratic sovereignty in the digital age?

Fundamental Principle: Actual residence, verifiable through the national register, becomes the sole criterion for democratic participation.

Concrete Implications: - End of current Belgian institutional complexity - Dual verification system: free digital or physical municipal - Guarantee of inclusion for all residents - Major administrative simplification

Central Ethical Question: Who should participate in decisions affecting a community?

The University Foundation and its Ethics Forum ensure: - Methodological rigor of the collaborative process - Academic validation of proposals - Coordination between French-speaking, Dutch-speaking and German-speaking Belgian universities - Independence from particular interests - Institutional credibility of the project

The Ethics Forum examines particularly: - Equality of value between life forms: philosophical foundations and practical implications - Arbitration in cases of conflicts of vital interests - Balance between nature protection and legitimate human needs - Intergenerational and ecological justice - Questions of digital sovereignty and commons

Cabinet of Commissioner Emma Virkkunen (Digital and Public Procurement): anchoring in European digital sovereignty strategy, coherence with public procurement policies, potential for European funding

Friends of the Earth: environmental expertise, citizen network, legitimacy with environmental movements, experience with mobilization campaigns

Law, science, computer science and philosophy faculties of Belgian universities for technical expertise, legal clinics and research theses

• Ethical and methodological validation by the forum
• Collaborative writing on wiki (educode.be)
• Progressive involvement of law faculties
• Public launch at EducaLibre 2026

• Legal refinement with universities
• Broad multilingual consultations
• Coalition building
• Complete technical documentation

• Public awareness campaign
• Citizen petition
• Cross-community mobilization

• Formal presentation to Parliament
• Follow-up of constitutional revision procedure

1. On equality of life forms: How to constitutionally formulate the principle of equal dignity while allowing necessary arbitrations for coexistence?
2. On conflicts of vital interests: What ethical criteria for arbitrating when vital human needs conflict with vital needs of other species?
3. On digital sovereignty: Are the principle of viral sharing and the prohibition of monopolistic appropriation ethically founded and legally solid?
4. On democratic participation: Is the single criterion of actual residence sufficient and equitable?
5. On methodology: Does the proposed open collaborative process guarantee sufficient rigor for constitutional reform?

We request from the Ethics Forum:

1. Validation in principle of the ethical relevance of the three proposed axes
2. Methodological recommendations for the collaborative process
3. Continuous accompaniment in arbitrating complex ethical questions
4. Active participation in the drafting and consultation phase

Nicolas Pettiaux
ASBL EduCode
https://educode.be
https://educalibre.eu

Complete document available under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license

Suggested Duration: 10 minutes

Good morning. I present to you a Belgian constitutional reform project that responds to three contemporary urgencies: the ecological crisis, technological dependency, and democratic complexity.

This project adopts an unprecedented methodology: open collaborative writing, inspired by Wikipedia and free software.

First observation: Our Constitution treats nature as a resource. Result: biodiversity collapse, urban concretization, climate disruption.

Second observation: Our public services depend on proprietary software controlled by multinationals. Result: loss of sovereignty, exorbitant costs, insecurity.

Third observation: Our Belgian democratic system is of Byzantine complexity. Result: confusion, exclusion, inefficiency.

Simple principle: all life forms have equal dignity.

Concretely: every urban tree, every park, every ecosystem benefits from constitutional protection. Humans cannot harm nature except in cases of demonstrated vital necessity. In return, humans can protect themselves from natural dangers, but favoring coexistence.

Ethical question: how to arbitrate when vital interests oppose?

Simple principle: every public service exclusively uses software whose source code is accessible, modifiable and redistributable by all.

Concretely: end of dependency on Microsoft, Google, etc. Voting systems, public registers, justice function with tools auditable by all. Any improvement of a public tool remains public: impossible to create a monopoly with taxpayers’ money.

Estonia has been doing this successfully for twenty years.

Simple principle: who resides participates.

Concretely: actual residence becomes the sole criterion for voting. Verification either digital via a free system, or physical at the municipality. Everyone chooses. No one is excluded.

Like for free software: - Open writing on wiki - Successive versions collectively improved - Complete transparency - CC-BY-SA license: everything is reusable

Law faculties bring legal rigor. The University Foundation and its Ethics Forum supervise. Commissioner Virkkunen’s cabinet anchors in European policy. Friends of the Earth mobilize.

Public launch at EducaLibre 2026, then broad consultation, then presentation to Parliament.

Because this project raises fundamental ethical questions:

Equality between species: what does this mean concretely? How to articulate it with our vital needs? Digital commons: how to protect them constitutionally? Democratic participation: who should decide for whom?

We need your expertise to navigate these questions, validate the approach, accompany the process.

This reform is ambitious but necessary. The method is innovative but proven elsewhere. The partnerships are solid.

I ask you today to validate this project and accompany us on this democratic adventure.

Thank you. I am at your disposal for your questions.