Mobility is also humility ‒ 5in10 with Yann Lorans
Yann Lorans studied European Union law at the Universities of Montpellier, Lund, Paris-Est Créteil, and at the College of Europe (Bruges). After an internship at the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cabinet of Advocate General Michal Bobek, he began a joint PhD at Université Paris-Est and KU Leuven. He defended his thesis on the collaborative relationship between the European judiciary and legislature in the field of fundamental rights. Alongside his research, he was a guest researcher at Lund University and has taught constitutional theory, French public law and EU law at Université Paris-Est Créteil, KU Leuven, Sciences Po Paris, and Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas. Since 2025, he has been working on the defence of democracy through EU media regulation as a re:constitution fellow, including research stays at the European Commission (Brussels) and NOVA School of Law (Lisbon).

How would you explain your research to someone who is not an expert in the same field?
At its core, my research looks at how the European Union (EU) is trying to defend democracy by regulating parts of the media environment. Democracy needs reliable information, a diversity of viewpoints, and journalists who can work freely and safely. When those conditions are weakened, democratic debate itself becomes fragile. Over the past decade, we have seen growing pressure on media freedom and pluralism in several Member States. Journalists have been targeted with strategic lawsuits designed to intimidate them into silence (often referred to as SLAPPs). Since 2015, several journalists even have been assassinated, as in Malta, Greece, or the Netherlands. At the same time, media outlets have sometimes been captured, either by governments or by powerful private actors, so that editorial lines increasingly serve political or economic interests rather than the public’s right to information. Beyond internal dynamics, foreign information manipulation and interference have become an increasingly visible challenge. Media and online platforms can be used to spread propaganda, distort public debate, and fuel social polarisation.
In response, the EU has adopted an increasingly ambitious media rulebook. This includes, among other instruments, the European Media Freedom Act, the Anti-SLAPP Directive, the Regulation on the transparency and targeting of political advertising, and the Digital Services Act. Together, these initiatives aim to protect journalists in their daily work, reinforce media freedom and pluralism, strengthen the integrity of the European information space, and ultimately defend the value of democracy.
What interests me most, however, is that this legal framework also creates tensions and paradoxes. These legislation often try to strike a balance between respect for fundamental rights, especially freedom of expression, and the need to protect democracy. A particularly heated debate today concerns the idea of “abuse” of free speech. What should be done when freedom of expression is invoked to spread hatred, harassment, or extremist ideology, whether offline or online? This is a sensitive and difficult issue, because any solution risks limiting one freedom in the name of protecting others.
In many ways, the EU has become a key arena for these debates, even though it is not always well equipped, politically, institutionally, or constitutionally, to settle them neatly. My research is driven by that complexity: the need to protect what we value most – democracy – while constantly negotiating the boundaries of rights and freedoms in a multi-level EU system.
What were academic or personal inspirations that led to your current research?
This project is, in many respects, the continuation of a trajectory that began with my PhD. My doctoral research started from the observation that, although fundamental rights in the EU were initially discovered and shaped through the case law of the Court of Justice, they are increasingly being given concrete expression by the EU legislature. In other words, fundamental rights are no longer only limits imposed on institutions but are becoming a fully-fledged EU policy. My PhD was mainly about understanding the implications of this politicisation of fundamental rights on the relationship between the Court and the EU legislator. It explored how their interaction changed into a more collaborative relation. But it also left me with a sense that I wanted to go deeper into a specific right, one where the political stakes and the democratic implications are especially visible.
That is where media freedom and pluralism come in, and here the inspiration is also personal. On the one hand, the media landscape in France has for years been marked by growing concentration and forms of private media capture. In my view, this can contribute to pushing the boundaries of what becomes “acceptable” in public debate, what we can call the “Overton window.” When extreme narratives are normalised, ideas that would once have been marginal can start to feel mainstream, which in turn reshapes public discourse. I find this evolution deeply worrying, and it made the topic impossible to ignore. On the other hand, another source of inspiration has been my fiancée, who has defended a PhD in information and communication sciences. Through conversations with her and her colleagues, I became increasingly passionate about research on media. Over time, I realised I could build a bridge between our fields of research.
Which stations of your professional journey were particularly formative to you?
We, as academics, sometimes underestimate how students contribute to shaping our thinking. In my case, I particularly cherish my exchange with my students. Probably one of the most interesting debates that I had on media was with Bachelors’ students. At the beginning of every class, I would always dedicate a time of discussion and debate on current news. Over the last few years, for better and for worse, current events have been particularly fertile ground for those conversations. I remember one session where students asked a series of very direct and practical questions: How do we navigate an overwhelming flow of information? How do we recognise editorial choices and the interests that may lie behind them? How can we access verified sources without falling into cynicism or relativism? What struck me was not only the depth of their questions, but also how clearly media literacy had become a democratic issue for their generation.
Media is often disregarded in early law curricula. Yet, even to understand democracy as a legal and political concept, the media dimension is increasingly central. That classroom moment crystallised something for me. I came to understand that it was not only an increasingly relevant field to investigate, but that it was necessary to better understand its legal framework, if we want to grasp how democracy is actually lived, contested, and protected today.
Do you think that academic mobility changes the way in which research projects are conceptualized/developed/carried out? What are your personal experiences in this regard?
Academic mobility changes everything! The questions you ask, the methods you find legitimate, the way you write, and even the way you define what “good research” should be. I have been lucky to study, research, and teach in several European academic environments, each with its own culture and expectations. That exposure has been transformative. As a concrete example, my PhD topic evolved significantly through that openness. Encountering different scholarly traditions and different ways of framing legal problems helped me shift my research focus and sharpen my arguments. Mobility also teaches humility. You realise that what seems self-evident in one system may be debated or even rejected in another, and that is intellectually healthy.
But academic mobility also comes with its difficulties. Coming from an academic system where mobility is not always treated as an obvious advantage, I also had to build trust in my international profile and prove that moving abroad was a way to deepen knowledge and expertise. Today, I feel I have learned to take the best from different academic cultures and turn that into a professional strength. Moreover, I remain very attentive to inequalities in access to mobility. Mobility is a privilege, and even when programmes such as Erasmus exist, not everyone can take advantage of them for financial, social, or personal reasons. That is precisely why funding schemes that genuinely support mobility and make it accessible, such as the re:constitution programme, matter so much.
What book, article, film, exhibition or song would you recommend, and why?
As a musician, I will recommend an album: PLANET by Sofiane Pamart. Although it’s an instrumental piano album, without lyrics, it feels intensely narrative. Each track is associated with a city, and the journey culminates in a final piece that shares the album’s title. For me, it resonates with a need to remain open to the world. It also represents my vision that humanity, with its diversity, plurality and richness, transcends places and nations. Moreover, it has accompanied me throughout my PhD, and it still does today. When research becomes dense or emotionally demanding, this album creates a space for focus and internal peace. And beyond the personal meaning, it’s simply beautifully composed.
Citation: Yann Lorans, Mobility is also humility‒ 5in10 with Yann Lorans, in: TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research, 26.03.2026, https://trafo.hypotheses.org/64859
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Forum Transregionale Studien (March 26, 2026). Mobility is also humility ‒ 5in10 with Yann Lorans. TRAFO – Blog for Transregional Research. Retrieved April 19, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/15y4c


