Conferences and Talks

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “En quoi le contrat fait part à la stratégie dans les entreprises saisies par la Compliance” (How Contracts Take Part in Strategy in Companies Seized by Compliance), in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Université Paris Cité (Faculty of Law, Economics and Management – Centre de Droit des Affaires et de Gestion, CEDAG), Compliance et stratégies d’entreprise dans l’organisation contractuelle des chaînes de valeur (Compliance and corporate strategies in the contractual organisation of value chains), Malakoff, 12 November 2026. - 🧮read the full programme of the event 🏗️This colloquium is part of the 2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. - ► Presentation of this conference: This intervention opens the colloquium, for which Marie-Anne Frison-Roche shares scientific responsibility with Étienne Maclouf, and which gives as much room to management science as to Law. “Value chains” have always existed, long before the legal system took hold of this reality, at once economic, financial and managerial; their entry into the legal order is recent, probably through the so-called “Vigilance” Act of 2017, and the expression now appears expressly in the texts of the European Union. Yet Law has always been present through the natural use of contract, an instrument of stability and organisation through which firms deploy their strategies. The introduction sets out the three questions that structure the colloquium: how do firms deploy and give value to their strategies through the contractual organisation of value chains? How do legal systems react, to a greater or lesser extent, to these strategies, depending on whether they know them and approve of them? And how can the firm’s strategy be articulated with the Monumental Goals underpinning Compliance Law when the contract becomes the instrument through which the firm implements its Compliance Obligation? - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Les nouveaux territoires du droit” (The new territories of Law), keynote in Conseil national des barreaux (CNB – French National Bar Council), Convention nationale des avocats 2026 (2026 National Lawyers’ Convention), plenary session 2 Ce qui nous tient : le droit comme promesse collective (What holds us together: Law as a collective promise), Toulouse, MEETT, 23 October 2026. - 🧮 This ten-minute talk is part of the second plenary session of the National Lawyers’ Convention, devoted to Law as a collective promise. - 🖥️ The slides supporting this conference will be posted shortly. - ► Presentation of this conference: What happens now happens within companies, including for issues that are not “economic”, with new interlocutors, the “stakeholders”, and with a primary concern: the future, that of systems and that of the human beings who live within them. The new territories of Law are those where decisions are formed and which Compliance Law grasps: governance, conformity and vigilance, sustainability, data, value chains and the new contractual engineering, reputational risks; wherever long-term decisions are made, where responsibilities are allocated, where credible commitments are made. Everyone sees new missions there, for managers, stakeholders, politicians, auditors, judges, lawyers, and even professors, but everyone also feels overwhelmed by unmanageable regulations (NIS 2, DORA, FCPA, DSA, Sapin II, DMA, CSRD…). Lawyers must be present in this ex ante space, to bring out the humanism on which these compliance corpora are founded, to help build lasting alliances enabling companies to play their part in the compliance ambitions, and to organise the new evidentiary culture of all parties, so that the flow of information is credible in amicable, pre-litigation and litigation relationships. This requires particular qualities from the lawyer entering this new territory, which leads from the ex ante towards a new kind of litigation. Law appears there as an alliance, and the lawyer as the one who creates the link so that the European ambition of Law as the cement of systems holds. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, participation in the round table “L’avenir de la justice négociée : faut-il consolider et étendre la convention judiciaire d’intérêt public ?” (The future of negotiated justice: should the judicial public interest agreement be consolidated and extended?), in French National Assembly, colloquium 10 ans après la loi Sapin II. Quelles réformes pour relancer la lutte contre la corruption en France ? (10 years after the Sapin II Act. What reforms to revive the fight against corruption in France?), at the initiative of Raphaël Gauvain, at the invitation of Yaël Braun-Pivet, President of the National Assembly, and Vincent Caure, Chair of the Law Committee, Hôtel de Lassay, Paris, 20 October 2026. - 🧮 The round table takes place from 5 pm to 6.30 pm. It is chaired by Raphaël Gauvain, lawyer, former Member of Parliament, co-author of the evaluation report on the Sapin II Act. 🎤 The other speakers are: 🕴️François Ruffin, Member of Parliament for the Somme; 🕴️Alexis Werl, member of the Conseil national des barreaux (National Bar Council), partner at Ashurst; 🕴️Jérôme Simon, First Deputy Financial Prosecutor at the Parquet national financier (National Financial Prosecutor’s Office); 🕴️Céline Haye-Kiousis, President of the Association nationale des juristes de banque (National Association of Bank Lawyers), General Counsel of the BPCE group; 🕴️Astrid Mignon Colombet, partner at August Debouzy; 🕴️Jean-Philippe Foegle, in charge of negotiated justice issues at the Sherpa association. - ► Presentation of this conference: Ten years after the Sapin II Act of 9 December 2016, which created the judicial public interest agreement (convention judiciaire d’intérêt public, CJIP), the colloquium held at the National Assembly considers the reforms likely to revive the fight against corruption in France. The round table devoted to negotiated justice takes stock of the CJIP and outlines its prospects: its role in handling complex economic and financial cases, its articulation with individual prosecutions, and the conditions for a possible extension of negotiated justice. It takes the form of an exchange between the speakers, with a view to proposals. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Synthèse” (Synthesis), in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Institut de recherche juridique de la Sorbonne (IRJS), Compliance et Droit commun des contrats (Compliance and General Contract Law), Paris, 7 October 2026. see on Instagram the carousel devoted to the conference (in French) - 🧮read the full programme of the event 🏗️This colloquium is part of the 2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. - 🎤See the presentation of the other intervention made in this colloquium: Autonomie de la volonté, engagements et Compliance (Autonomy of will, commitments and Compliance). - 📝See also the newsletter devoted to this colloquium: Compliance et Droit commun des Contrats : mariage difficile, mariage prometteur (Compliance and General Contract Law: a difficult marriage, a promising marriage, in French). - ► Presentation of this conference: The synthesis closes the colloquium Compliance et Droit commun des contrats (Compliance and General Contract Law), organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Institut de recherche juridique de la Sorbonne (IRJS) of Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, under the scientific responsibility of Julia Heinich, Nicolas Bargue and Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. It draws together the contributions of the morning: the autonomy of will as the source of the contractual Compliance Obligation, the regulatory contracts generated by compliance (Jean-Baptiste Barbieri), the position of third parties to contracts with a compliance dimension (Philippe Stoffel-Munck) and the scope of contracts expressing the compliance imperative (Laurent Aynès), in order to bring out what general contract law brings to Compliance Law and what the latter asks of it in return. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Autonomie de la volonté, engagements et Compliance” (Autonomy of will, commitments and Compliance), in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Institut de recherche juridique de la Sorbonne (IRJS), Compliance et Droit commun des contrats (Compliance and General Contract Law), Paris, 7 October 2026. see on Instagram the carousel devoted to the conference (in French) see on Instagram the image announcing this lecture (in French) - 🧮read the full programme of the event 🏗️This colloquium is part of the 2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. - 🖥️read the slides supporting this conference (in French) - 🎤See the presentation of the other intervention made in this colloquium: Synthèse (Synthesis). - 📝This conference will give rise to an article, “Autonomie de la volonté, engagements et Compliance”, to be published in the book 📕Compliance et Contrat (Compliance and Contract), in the series 📚Régulations & Compliance, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. - ► Presentation of this conference: Contract law, in its common rules expressed by the “general theory of contracts”, seems at first sight to be given little consideration when it comes to Compliance. Yet the “commitments” that punctuate the techniques and behaviours making up the “compliance culture” hold a central place in Compliance Law, without their place, let alone their equivalence with Contract, being settled. If one stops perceiving Compliance Law only through the prism of repression, the compliance obligation can be thought of as also having contract as a legitimate source, a contract whose source, in general law, is the autonomy of will and all its consequences. It is on the basis of this founding principle that this conference opens the colloquium. At the heart of Contract Law as of Compliance Law lies the will. But whose will? If the will of the Legislator shapes the obligation that companies implement, and if the Monumental Goals stem from the will of the Political power, companies would enter into them only as executors, and the contract would merely be a path taken by the law to apply more effectively: an arranged marriage. The conference proposes to link the compliance contract, or the compliance clause, not to the external will of a Legislator, but to the primary source of the contract: the autonomous wills of the contracting parties who exchange their consents, thus restoring to the autonomy of will its place as the source of the contractual Compliance Obligation. It first measures the concrete stake of designating this source, distinguishing three conceptions: the contract as the mouthpiece of the regulator, the contracting parties as the regulator’s “good soldiers”, and autonomous and convergent wills, which choose the ways and means of taking their part in the legal ambitions — Compliance chosen rather than Compliance endured. It then proposes to put an end to the current confusion between the force of regulation, the binding force of wills and the impetus of commitments, and finally to occupy the contractual sphere freely in order to develop a contractual Compliance system specific to each company. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, « La clause d’audit corrélée à l’Obligation de Compliance » (The Audit Clause Correlated with the Compliance Obligation), in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Centre de recherches Louis Josserand, La contractualisation de la Compliance : clause après clause (The Contractualisation of Compliance: Clause by Clause), Lyon, 25 September 2026. - 🧮view the full programme of the event 🏗️This colloquium is part of the 2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. - 🚧This conference is based on a bilingual Working Paper: The Audit Clause, Carousel of the Contractualisation of Compliance. - 🖥️consult the slides supporting this lecture (these slides are in English; the slides projected during the lecture were the original French slides) - 🎤See the presentation of the other lecture given in this colloquium: Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses. - 📘This conference will give rise to an article, “The Audit Clause Correlated with the Compliance Obligation”, to be published in the book 📘Compliance and Contract, in the 📚Compliance & Regulation series, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. - ► Presentation of the conference: The audit clause is the most frequently cited and most common Compliance clause: it outsources internal control techniques onto a third party. A distinction must be drawn between the audit clause securing one’s own interests, the audit clause ensuring one’s own conformity and the audit clause carrying out a Compliance project. The audit clause then appears as the “necessary accessory” to the conformity and Compliance clause. It is the “objective reflection” of the legal Compliance Obligation, which requires “detecting” in order to act, and its “subjective reflection”, since the regulated party is in charge of those who, notably in value chains, are “concerned third parties”. In a first part, the conference places itself inside the audit clause. It shows how to draft it in order to obtain the relevant information from the persons who hold it and where it is located: designating in advance the information sought, the persons, documents and places, the event triggering the audit, periodic or linked to an event, who conducts it and its modalities, according to a criterion of proportionality between the extent of the information sought and the objective pursued. It also shows how to integrate from the drafting stage the limits and risks of this audit contractually imposed on others, notably with regard to the rights of the defence and the strategic use of the audit report. In a second part, the conference places itself outside the clause. The audit clause leans on other stipulations, conformity clause or Compliance clause, corporate relationships and governance techniques. Other clauses lean on it, in order to strike (dispute resolution, sanction and termination clauses) or to draw closer (remediation clause). The court will have to interpret it in the light of its purpose, as the “necessary accessory” to the application of Compliance Law. In conclusion, the Compliance audit clause appears as the carousel of the contractualisation of Compliance: where it is knotted, where conformity and Compliance are distinguished, where the judge contributes to the deployment of Compliance Law. - - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, « Unicité et Diversité des clauses de Compliance » (Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses), in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Centre de recherches Louis Josserand, La contractualisation de la Compliance : clause après clause (The Contractualisation of Compliance: Clause by Clause), Lyon, 25 September 2026. - 🧮read the full programme of the event (in French) 🏗️This colloquium is part of the 2026 cycle of colloquia Compliance and Contract. - 🚧This lecture is based on a bilingual Working Paper: Unicity and Diversity of Compliance Clauses: towards a Contractual Compliance System. - 🖥️consult the slides supporting this lecture (these slides are in English; the slides projected during the lecture were the original French slides) - 🎤See the presentation of the other lecture given in this colloquium: The Audit Clause Correlated with the Compliance Obligation. - 📝This lecture will give rise to an article, « Unicité et Diversité des clauses de Compliance », to be published in the book 📕Compliance and Contract, in the series 📚Compliance & Regulation, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant. - ► Presentation of this lecture : Practitioners insert into a wide variety of contracts clauses that are expressly designated as “Compliance clauses”. We lack a definition, so their legal regime is uncertain. To consolidate this practice and ensure that its development produces satisfactory effects, these clauses must be classified, named and distinguished from one another. This is what this lecture sets out to do. In a first stage, a strong unicity of Compliance clauses appears. But this unicity is somewhat misleading. It proceeds from a confusion between contract and statute: whether the clause, as a block, obliges the other contracting party to comply with all the regulations, or borrows its unity from the particular corpus of which it claims to be the tool of application, the clause copies the legislation. This is the unified but rather archaic conception to which the Regulator has itself lent credence, by designating the Compliance clause only as a delegation within a normative power that would remain first and foremost its own. So as not to stop there, in a second stage, the lecture shows the great diversity of Compliance clauses, a de jure diversity born of the principle of contractual freedom and a de facto diversity resulting from the porosity of the clause to the activities concerned, the country and the persons. To be mastered, this diversity must be channelled by a nomenclature. It must also be preserved in a lasting way, because it stems from the general policy of the company and the project it wishes to develop, for example in the value chains it has chosen to build through regulatory contracts. Nevertheless, and this is the subject of the third stage of the lecture, there is a deep and programmatic unicity of Compliance clauses, which lies in the systemic goals they serve. In practice, this unicity is built through an interlinked system of clauses, precisely described and specific to each undertaking. At the level of a large company, this can give rise to a Contractual Compliance System, which is articulated and allied with the regulatory system. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La définition juridique du Contrat de compliance (The legal definition of the compliance contract)", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) published by the Centre for Research on Justice and Conflict Resolution (CRJ) and the Centre for Research in Economics and Law (CRED) at Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), Le "Contrat de compliance" (The "Compliance Contract"),  Paris II Lecture Theatre –  82 Rue Notre Dame des Champs, Paris, 12 June  2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event - 📶view the slides (in French) - read the presentation made on LinkedIn - 🚧Read the bilingual working paper on which this conference is based   - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to the book, 📕Compliance et Contrat (Compliance and Contracts),  To be published in the 📚Regulations & Compliance series, a book co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. - ► Overview of this lecture : The lecture is divided into three parts. In the first part, the aim is to describe the reality of the “Compliance Contract”, which can be defined as the decision taken by an entity subject to a “Compliance Obligation” (most often a company, but it may also be a administrative organisation) to entrust the fulfilment of that obligation to a third party. This does not diminish the entity’s obligation to be accountable for the compliance structure, nor for its ability to produce the expected outcomes, in particular the behaviours that will contribute to achieving the Monumental Systemic Goals for which the compliance frameworks were adopted. This outsourcing is lawful; its contractual form falls under Contract Law and the principle of contractual freedom. Even if one considers that, since the subject matter of the contract is Compliance itself, it would constitute a ‘Systemic Contract’—just as Compliance Litigation is ‘Systemic Litigation’—its fundamental nature is indeed a bilateral relationship between a client and a professional (who is often subject to professional rules and codes of conduct). Indeed, there are legal consequences to this practice of “Compliance Contracts”, because it is the Compliance System that is thereby served: on the one hand, “regulatory clauses” will be inserted, whilst others will be removed (“deemed unwritten”). Contractual freedom remains the guiding principle, however. In Contract Law, it would be appropriate for the contracting parties to refer to this contribution to the Monumental Goals, which constitute the  fundamental legal norm of the Compliance System, if only to guide the contract Judge who may be called upon in the event of a dispute, as the interpretation of the parties’ intentions must be carried out in a teleological manner. In the second part, the relationship between this "Compliance Contract" and the various "Compliance Clauses" is analysed. The two should certainly not be confused, since, quite apart from these highly specific contracts through which the various compliance techniques are entrusted, in their drafting and management, to third parties, who thus become the experts, there are also clauses inserted into numerous contracts (sales, distribution, manufacturing, service, etc.), clauses which aim, amongst many other clauses serving different purposes, to incorporate compliance considerations into the contract. But first and foremost, the Compliance Contract contains numerous clauses specific to it, which often derive from compliance system, since Compliance concretisation is the very purpose of this specific contract, et nothing else: it is therefore logical that, by way of a ‘transparency effect’, the legal Compliance Systemic requirements should be incorporated into the isolated contract. Secondly, and more significantly, many various contracts contain clauses that provide for the triggering of a “Compliance Ccontract”. For example, when an audit clause is linked to a specific event and the provision stipulates that a contract will then be entered into with a particular expertal body or person, this will generate a Compliance Contract in a second time. The link between the two may give one of the contracting parties control over the other, notably if the expert is close to them. If the links between Compliance Contracts and Compliance Clauses are developping, this could lead to a return to vertical integration. Competition Law may be justified in looking into this.  It appears that, once we have distinguished between Compliance Contracts and Compliance Clauses, and then linked them together, we can arrive at a Contractual Compliance Strategy that is both legitimate and effective, provided that it contributes to the achievement of the Compliance Monumental Goals set by the political and public authorities.  Indeed, as soon as we distinguish between “conformity” – which is intended solely to compel the operator to obey all applicable regulations blindly and mechanically – and “Compliance Law”, which is legally guided by Monumental Systemic Goals, this contractual strategy becomes essential.   Part Three sets out to clarify the scope of this Compliance Contract. The first implication concerns the Compliance System itself, of which it forms a part; the Compliance Contract having the welcome effect of increasing the operator’s contribution to the achievement of the Monumental Systemic Goals (ensuring that systems – banking, financial, transport, energy, climate, digital, etc.—do not collapse and do not crush human beings, but rather benefit the human beings who are involved in them, whether willingly or not). To this end, the contract must enable the operator – where necessary by means of express provisions – to demonstrate its credibility in contributing to the achievement of these Monumental Goals. Reliable pathways and credible structures must be established. In the cas of technical implementation is outsourced by a Compliance Contract, this obligation to provide evidence may be undermined. To compensate for this, the Compliance Contract may itself include provisions relating to portable technical information, support available through the client's accountability mechanism, or even in the event of legal proceedings. The second aspect concerns the contractors themselves, who adapt their intentions and are bound, above all, by this “little law” which is any contract for the parties. This perspective is surprisingly underdeveloped in practice, no doubt because in Law, when considering Compliance, reference is made to unilateral “regulations” and the vertical relationship of obedience that it engenders in the operator.  This changes with the transformation of "conformity" (which is that) in "Compliance Law" (which is based on Monumental Systemic Goals and justifies contracts). The third aspect concerns third parties, namely the stakedholders (and competitors…). These third parties benefit from Compliance Contracts because they are integrated into the Compliance System and because of the transparency between this system and the Compliance Contracts. In fact, and more technically speaking, this specific Cgreement provides them not only with a accountable(the company, the public body, the State), but also with a contractual debtor. Stakeholders may assert rights against the latter. However, because the contracts themselves are also enforceable against third parties, they can anticipate these relationships with third parties – not only the competitors of the entity subject to the Compliance Obligation, but also its own relationship with stakeholders, and even its relationship with public authorities. Indeed, the object (and effect) of the Compliance Contract is to produce and build up Information that is of interest to everyone. The result is a ‘treasure trove of evidence’. A key question is how, and whether, this treasure trove can remain within the circle of the contracting parties or not. Indeed, the fourth area concerns Public Authorities. As the bodies that “uphold” the compliance system, they consider the Compliance Contract to be legitimate and one of the most effective means of ensuring that regulations are effective, efficient and properly enforced; however, they also wish to benefit from the outcome of the contract’s implementation: to access the systemic information it generates. The contracting parties do not always share this view, but the Compliance Contract is not a means of “obeying” regulations. It is the Judge who will certainly address this question of principle, which relates to the very definition of Compliance Law. This brings us to the fifth area of application, which concerns the Courts. Indeed, a number of courts are responsible for hearing such cases: the contract courts, the competition courts, the courts overseeing the various systems whose sustainability is thus safeguarded, and the courts specialising in vigilance legal duty  (which is the cutting edge of Compliance Law).  The issue of the “natural judge” was examined at the symposium held on 29 May 2026 on: Contractual litigation involving compliance: procedural and jurisdictional aspects. The judge hearing the contract case (civil or commercial judge) will tend to refer first and foremost to the contract. This is also why the Compliance Contract conceptor would be well advised to include provisions in its terms regarding its relationship with the Compliance System, so that it is not the authorities of that system who do so in a too much discretionary manner. In understanding the "Compliance Contract", as Iit was emphasised in 2022, in the judge’s interpretation of the contract, the judge is required to reconcile the parties’ intentions with a teleological approach, that is to say, to establish that the parties intended to serve the purpose of the expertise thus requested and developed (for the operator and ultimately for the stakeholders and for the system itself).  By establishing this convergence, the judge gives full effect to the Cmpliance Contract. Rather than framing the issue, as is so often done when reasoning in terms of ‘conformity’, as a conflict between contractual freedom and public policy (conformity serving a public policy that would be contrary to the contract, inferior norm in the vertical normative hiercharchy).  It must be accepted as a fundamental principle that contractual freedom, freedom of contract and a competitive market for compliance expertise are the most effective means of developing a Compliance System that will safeguard interconnected  different systems and protect the people involved in them. - ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance contract, compliance clauses, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts, - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art newsletter

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le maniement du temps dans le contentieux contractuel impliquant la Compliance : de l’urgence au temps long (The management of time in contractual litigation involving compliance: from urgency to the long term)", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Jean Moulin – Lyon 3 University, Contractual disputes involving compliance: procedural and jurisdictional aspects,  Faculty of Law, Lyon, 29 May 2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event (in French) - 📶view the slides (in French) - 🚧Read the bilingual working paper on which this conference is based - Read the présenation of the other two papers presented at this conference: 🎥The emergence of contractual disputes involving compliance due to the convergence of legal areas 🎥Appropriate adjudication in contractual disputes involving compliance and its effective enforcement - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to the book, 📕Compliance et Contrat  with English summaries)  To be published in the 📚Regulations & Compliance series, a book co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. - ► Overview of this conference :  ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻J.-M. Coulon and 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche (eds.), Le temps dans la procédure (Time in Legal Proceedings), 19966 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts,   - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art newsletter

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Obligation de compliance et gouvernance bancaire (Compliance obligations and banking governance)", in Chair in Business Ethics: Compliance, ESG and Sustainability Reporting & National Association of Bank Lawyers (ANJB), Compliance et vigilance bancaire : la participation des acteurs du secteur bancaire et financier à la LCB/FT (Compliance and Banking Vigilance: the Participation of Banking and Financial Sector Players in AML/CFT) , Faculty of Law, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, 12 March 2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event (in French) - 📶view the slides (in French) - read the summary of this conference and the colloquium on LinkedIn - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to a forthcoming book in the 📚Régulations & Compliance series, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz.   - ► English presentation of this introductory lecture of the symposium : Based on a specific method, three perspectives will be taken. In method, to shed light on the round tables making up the day's meetings without addressing the subject in their place or pretending to answer in advance the questions they will raise, or seeking to conclude in advance without having listened to anything, which is sometimes the flaw of introductions, which are so often a kind of disguised closing statement, with just a few question marks to give the impression of change, I have adopted the old, old method of the "triple funnel" introduction. This involves starting from a point other than the subject of the conference itself, Compliance and banking vigilance: the participation of banking and financial sector players in AML/CFT, in order to approach the subject from an external perspective and in a preliminary manner, nbsp;then moving on to a second external point, and doing so a third time, so that after this three-part presentation, the subject has been explored in sufficient depth to allow the following speakers to focus on the specific topic at hand. This is all the easier given that the chosen theme itself focuses on three points: a specific ambition (the "fight against money laundering and terrorist financing"), a specific sector (the "banking sector") and a specific activity carried out by individuals; three specific terms: one ambition (the "fighting agains AML/CFT""activity"). – one sectors (the "banking sector") and one active department (the "participation of stakeholders"). - My first starting point is to define what Compliance Law is in order to link Compliance Law to the subject it covers: the banking sector. Because if it were simply a matter of "being conform with applicable regulations", it is difficult to understand why the banking sector is so concerned, so constrained, so exposed to "compliance", which is simply the British way of saying "conformity". There must be more to it than simply obeying every rule and standards for preventing breaches for it, to be obliged to be so structuring and for the banking sector to be at the forefront. It therefore appears that Compliance Law is not simply mechanical obedience to a body of regulations, but rather the contribution made by systemic operators to the realisation of political ambitions that are essential for the future (the "Monumental Goals", both negative and positive). It is in this capacity that the banking sector, because it is composed of "crucial operators", is the natural subject of Compliance Law. Its power should not be criticised; it is indispensable. In an emerging branch of law that is systemic, that is Ex Ante, that is above all a Law of action whose object is the future. Techniques of conformity is only one tool. ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝 Monumental goals, the beating heart of compliance law, in  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕The monumental goals of compliance, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Birth of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance and conformity: distinguishing between them in order to articulate them, 2024 - My second starting point is to start with the "Monumental Goals", this normative foundation of Compliance Law, and link it to this present specific case, privileged ambition of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Certain things are surprising. Indeed, if we refuse at the introductory stage to delve into the technicalities of the texts and the litigation surrounding them, we may wonder why these two subjects (money laundering and terrorist financing) are linked in this way. We can see the correlation between banking activitird and money laundering. Notaries, auctioneers, and, in short, anyone who handles money are also involved in the fight against it. Moreover, if we see the ratio legis, the idea remains that the one who is merely the conduit (to use the familiar basis distinction in the regulatory rule of essential network infrastructure) could also be the one who organises the content: the image remains of the money laundering banker. Even if the ex ante compliance diligence whitewashes in advance, this suspicion that remains of an ex post sanction. We pay dearly for this representation, which permeates the repressive, even Criminal, Law of banking supervision, particularly in matters of secrecy, transparency, information and risk-taking. But why extend it to terrorist financing? Because the suspicion of terrorist bankers no longer exists. The case becomes clear-cut again. It is a matter of internalising within banks the sovereign responsibility to intervene before it is too late, before people are killed. Financing is the weak and visible point of systemic evil. This is understandable. It has moved from ex post (financial processing after the crime) to ex ante (financial processing before the crime). It is of a different nature. But if this is of a different nature, there is no reason to stop this Ex Ante surveillance, because money movements provide so much information about collective and individual projects. For example, in the digital space. We must be careful about this, in light of the principle of freedom, of which the principle of non-interference is only one aspect. ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Ex Ante – Ex Post Couple, Justification of a Specific Regulatory Law, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Les engagements dans les systèmes de régulation, 2006 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Ex Ante Responsability, a pillar of Compliance Law, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: Understanding and Keeping a Level Head, in  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕The obligation of compliance, 2025 - My third starting point is "Governance", a rather mysterious term, as it relates more to the political art of mobilising human beings than to Law. Why is it necessary for "actors" to participate, when legal norms are binding and, in most cases, take the form of Criminal Law? The combination of the most violent norms, the application of financial penalties, and even deprivation of liberty, being often claimed as a victory for financial and banking regulatory and supervisatory bodies , even as procedural principles are being rolled back, could be a source of incomprehension. Moreover, in a legal system that would be challenged by this "Governance", it is up to the State to dictate and the banks to obey. But if banks take charge of everything, it becomes difficult to maintain this system, and it is undoubtedly no longer tenable if the Monumental Goal expands to dimensions that exceed those of the State but correspond to those of the banks. The risk then is to move from one governing body to another, which is a growing social and political risk. In practical terms, banking operators can achieve this reversal in two ways. Firstly, by effectively involving the human beings who make up their organisations, both internally and externally, their partners and stakeholders. This can be called "Governance" in an alliance based on explicitcommon  goals, with contributions that are not taken at face value but are provided by "compliance structures", "credible behaviour" and "plausible trajectories". In this respect, mutual banks are in a better position than others. Training mechanisms, which are central to Compliance Law, play an essential role here. Secondly, alliances with public authorities and regional roots, with concrete assessments, are decisive. The contract then becomes not only the mandatory means by which the regulated bank fulfils its regulatory obligation, but also the most traditional legal tool by which it exercises its freedom to contribute, in its own way, to the achievement of Monumental Goals for the future of the social group, which is currently under threat. We are far beyond "conformity": this is called Compliance Law. ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝A substantive Compliance Law, based on the European humanist tradition,in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Towards a Europe of Compliance, 2019 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Training: content and context of Compliance Law, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Compliance tools, 2020 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Contract, compliance clauses, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts, 2026 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🏛️Official Mission given by the French Minister of Justice, Compliance Law, Work in progress, 2025 – 2026. - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "The Future of Compliance", series Compliance, Centre Perelman, Brussels, 23 February 2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the series Compliance (in French) - ► English presentation of this concluding conference in the series Compliance : The future of Compliance: who knows what it holds? Anyone who practises and studies the texts, litigation, structures and behaviours will have to admit that they do not know what will become of what has emerged as a new branch of law. It is not easily recognised, probably for three reasons. Firstly, because the birth of a new branch of law is an unusual phenomenon, whose disruptive and regenerative waves are felt in all branches of law and other regulatory systems, accompanying and reflecting the new world we have already entered, whether we like it or not. Secondly, because it is unpleasant (especially if you are a professor…) to begin and conclude with the fact that you do not know. Thirdly, because it is not very marketable, and in today's large and growing "compliance market", it is not very smart, if you want to sell compliance products (whether they be algorithms, new services to be linked to the highest level of companies, specialities in law firms, new chairs in various schools), to say that you don't know. So the experts say they know. For my part, I meet many people who are "experts" and who are "knowledgeable". What is surprising is the diversity of their discourse, which casts doubt on the solidity of the projection, particularly on the meaning of words: for example, not only words that could be described as "new" (which we then try to anchor in old words) such as "compliance/conformity" and "governance", but also words that we are undoubtedly more familiar with, such as "commitment" and "responsibility" or "sanction", i.e. the very pillars of the matter. Why is this a cause for concern, apart from the fact that it is always better to know what we are talking about, rather than everyone talking in their own corner, for their own compliance corpus, for their like-minded friends, with the subject matter becoming increasingly siloed? Because the object of Compliance Law is the future. So, the future of this branch of law which its object is the future is by nature very uncertain.   It will therefore be assumed in advance that not knowing the future is a major difficulty when it comes to Compliance Law, in that this branch of law is unified in that it is ex ante and its object is the future. The difficulty is neither of the same nature nor of the same magnitude when it comes to the legislator, the "regulator", the regulated company (calculating or political), or the judge faced with systemic compliance litigation. That said, in a first part, one can imagine the future possibilities for Compliance (because that is what it boils down to, given the number of candidates eager to seize the instruments of power that are the " Compliance tools"). It is not a foregone conclusion that this future will be governed by Law. The consequences could take care of that. Or the order given by the leader (Trump, for instance), and that would go down all the better as he states that he certainly does not care about human beings but that he wields the power of Compliance to restore the climate balance (through Chinese regulations): except to say that there is no unified Compliance Law. That there would be one for the climate and another for human rights. So what about the future consistency of European Law, which links the two in the CSRD and the CS3D? Particularly in value chains. The question then is: what will be the uniqueness of Compliance Law in the future? -   In a second part, since we do not know how things will turn out, from omnibus to omnibus, from a government hostile to the Law to a government appealing to the Due Process, from case law to case law, from special law to common law, we must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the various perspectives. There is never one perspective where everything is good and another where everything is bad, because in that case there would be no choice and no policy: it would be enough to have information, to be "rational" and to go for the right solution rather than the wrong one. Beyond general statements that a combination of compliance and ethics is welcome, which is not in doubt in the superb statements made in this regard, it is necessary to look at the advantages and disadvantages of the direction we may take. Firstly, there is the disappearance of Compliance Law, with the advantage of reducing the regulatory burden on those subject to it and the disadvantage of abandoning altruistic and global ambitions (these two Monumental Goals may overlap). Secundly, it could involve the creation of a global empire, with the advantage of a simplified American empire, whether extraterritorialised by the state or by companies and their governance or technology, with the advantage of a Western model and the disadvantage of the crushing of "mondialisation" by globalisation and the disappearance of the specific ambitions of States. Thirdly, it may be a contribution to a war between powers, particularly through the European DSA and the data war, with the advantage of European maturity in Compliance Law as an extension of Regulatory Law and the disadvantage that we could move from a war in the metaphorical sense (never use metaphors in Law) to a war. Quaterly, it could be a new rule of Law in which systemic companies participate in an alliance to achieve Monumental political Goals decided by States and political authorities, preserving systems for the future ("sustainability") so that human beings are not crushed by them but benefit from them. The disadvantage is that we have to relearn the Law, because although it has nothing to do with conformity, which is only an instrument, Compliance Law changes all branches of Law and requires the integration of other techniques, particularly political and technological ones. -   In third part, in practice, we must strive in advance to reduce the disadvantages associated with the shortcomings of possible future developments in Compliance Law, just as we must strive in advance to increase the advantages associated with the qualities of possible future developments in Compliance Law. The disadvantage lies in the very nature of Compliance Law, namely its great power, because unlike Competition Law, it calls for and increases power. We must therefore counteract the prospect of compliance techniques, particularly those related to Information, being monopolised by those who only want to use them to consolidate or extend their power, laughing at Ethics and Monumental Goals. This means that supervision techniques on the one hand and a renewed role for judges on the other must be considered. The quality attached to possible futures stems from the fact that we could uphold a "Global Law" (reference to the work of Benoît Frydman, among others) and that, faced with the possible disappearance of Public International Law and the imperative preservation of value chains, particularly in the context of possible war, the alliance between supervised systemic companies and the political authorities in charge of the future of the social group that legitimises them may appear to be a legitimate, effective, efficiate and efficient system. -   ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Conceiving Power, 2021 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Birth of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and conformity: distinguishing between them to better articulate them, 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Complianceo Obligation, 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, 2025 - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le Droit de la Compliance, voie de la transition vers une égalité effective, efficace et efficiente entre les êtres humains (Compliance Law, for the transition towards the effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency of the equality between human beings)", in Chair "Mutualist and cooperative banking at the service of the economy", ESCP, Les banques coopératives et les transitions​ (Cooperative Banks and Transitions), 29 January 2026. - 🧮view the general programme for the conference Cooperative banks and transitions (in French) - 📶see the slides (in French) - ► Presentation of this conference: The conference is not specifically aimed at lawyers, and even less so at specialists in Compliance Law. That is why it is divided into three parts, in order to show how Compliance Law is relevant in practice for creating effective, efficace and efficient equality between human beings. The first part of the lecture sets out the ambition of equality between human beings. As this is a political principle and not a natural one. As it is an ambition, it justifies being placed first and after that this ambition must be concretised, in a sort of second place. This second place is built bay a tro : that of effectiveness (real application of the norm), efficacy (that the goal for which the norm was established is achieved) and efficiency (that the system is transformed so that, having become robust, it endures through sustainabily). The second part of the conference will present the new branch of law known as Compliance Law. This should be distinguished from simple conformity, which consists of mechanically obeying a body of regulations that are constantly growing and becoming more complex. Compliance Law's Goal is to protect systems from risks that could cause them to disappear (all systems). "Sustainability" is the key principle, which is not limited to the climatic system (also digital system, banking system, and so on) and imposes the future as its object and the long term as its relevant time frame (unlike the market and Competition Law). "Transition" is also a key concept, as it involves moving from one state to another, from an expressed ambition to its realisation, through collaboration with others. These Goals are "Monumental" and are the normative legal basis of Compliance Law. In Europe, the Compliance Monumental Goal is to preserve systems for that the human beings who are involved in them, willingly or unwillingly, are not crushed by them, but rather benefit from them (for instance in banking sector). This is a "Monumental Negative Goal", to which is added a "Monumental Positive Goal", which a new conception of the "Ex Ante Responsability" (not liabily). Dialectically, the third part of the conference explains how Compliance Law internalises the political ambition of equality between human beings, which develops in the three concentric circles of effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency, among the operators best placed to contribute to it. Mutual banks belong to these circles more than the others. Firstly, because they are structured around the principle of taking human beings into consideration. Secondly, because they are rooted in their local areas. Thirdly, because they are driven by the long term, duration and sustainable. The transition est easer. The dificulty is the necessity to proof the effective and efficient will to do this transition. - ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Drawing the circles of Compliance Law, 2017 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Monumental goals, the beating heart of compliance law, 2021 🕴🏻C. Peicuti and 🕴🏻J. Beyssade, 📝The feminisation of management positions in companies as a compliance objective. The example of the banking sector, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📘The Monumental Goals of Compliance, 2022  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Births of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024 - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Saisir les principes du Droit de la Compliance à travers l'actualité (Understanding the principles of compliance law through current current legal cases and events), Jean Moulin  – Lyon 3 University Law Faculty, 10 December 2025. - ► Methodological presentation of this 4-hour MasterClass : It is difficult to teach a branch of law that is still being developed, to find a way to open its doors, because if by explaining its principles ex abrupto, the risk exists of remaining at the door, even though the aim is to open it. This door is all the more blocked by the accumulation of multiple regulatory corpus, which are now perceived as being linked to Compliance Law: GDPR, Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, FCPA, etc.; These are highly technical and complicated, and tend to be studied in silos, with little connection between them and little articulation with the traditional branches of Law. Therefore, the principles that form the backbone of Compliance Law as an autonomous branch of Law are all the less apparent, even though they would make these "compliance blocks" more intelligible and manageable. However, setting out these principles, which shed light not only on the current positive law but also on how it will evolve, seems "theoretical". In order to open the door to this new branch of Law, which already occupies a significant place in practice and is set to expand, so that it can be handled by lawyers who understand its spirit and is not entirely dominated by those from other disciplines who will master its tools (risk mapping, assessment, internal investigation, etc.), most often through algorithms and platforms (compliance by design), it is relevant to start with a few cases, a few decisions, a few texts, and a few comments, to gauge what they reveal. Because the principles are already there. They are gradually emerging. The challenge is that they often emerge quickly, in a manner that is sufficiently consistent with other branches of Law, and that the legal aspect takes precedence. That is what is at stake today. Each hour is devoted to a different case, based on a document of a different legal genre. - read a post on LinkedIn (in French) - - ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Monumental Goals, the beating heart of Compliance Law, 2023 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their commitments and undertakings, 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, 2025   - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, ""Géomètres-experts : une profession qui assume concrètement sa responsabilité territoriale Géomètres-experts : une profession qui assume concrètement sa responsabilité territoriale (Chartered Surveyors: a Profession that takes its territorial responsibility seriously)", interview for JurisHebdo, 27 November 2025 - ► Read the interview  (in French) in which the questions (translated below in English) were answered⤵ - Q.You helped define the raison d'être of the profession of chartered surveyors and its Professional Order. In your opinion, what is its true consequences?   Q. Can the raison d'être become a tool for Compliance or Governance?   Q. What conflicts arise around the source of compliance norms and their implementation?    Q. Is this initiative part of a broader move towards social responsibility?   Q. How can the raison d'être influence the mission of the chartered surveyor, particularly in relation to land and environmental matters?  - ⛏️Further reading on the subject: 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🎤Designing a raison d'être and explaining it, 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Monumental Goals of Compliance, the beating heart of Compliance Law, 2023 - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche,  ""Ordonner la Compliance : pourquoi le faire et comment le faire ? (Organising Compliance: why do it and how to do it?)", interview Focus on… conducted for Dalloz Actu Étudiants, 13 November 2025 - ► read the interview : 💬 Read the interview (in French) - read the interview presentation on LinkedIn (in French) read the interview presentation through the MAFR Newsletter Law, Compliance, Regulation, (in English) - ► presentation  of the interview by Dalloz Actu-Étudiants  : Compliance can be defined as a new branch of law that mobilises major economic players and their stakeholders to ensure that the large systems in which we live do not collapse, but remain solid and sustainable. Sanctions, contracts, ethical principles, court decisions and corporate cultures all converge to achieve this. The ambition is great, some contest it, many want to escape it. It is still difficult to define compliance, which seems to be going in all directions. Who? What? Why? How? These are all questions addressed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor of law and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), together with the contributors to the collective works in the Régulations & Compliance series under her scientific direction. Compliance (JoRC), together with the contributors to the collective works in the "Regulations & Compliance" collection under her scientific direction, sheds light on with her imaginative power combined with her legal precision. - Q.Why do the fundamental objectives of compliance unify all legal compliance techniques? Summary of MAFR's response: because all these regulatory frameworks, which large companies are required to enforce effectively and which appear disparate, creating as many specific requirements as there are regulatory compliance blocks, find their unity when we consider the following reality: whatever the body of regulations in question (Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, IAA, etc.), the aim is always to identify and prevent systemic risks so that these systems do not collapse.   Q. How can we define the obligation of compliance? Summary of MAFR response: the company concerned is therefore obliged to put in place "compliance structures", such as mapping, plans, alert structures and programmes (obligation of result), but of course, and this is the key point, to achieve this goal, namely to ensure that the system in question (banking, financial, climate, digital, algorithmic, etc.) does not collapse. This is an obligation of means. This is the exact, simple definition that unifies all the regulations of the Compliance Obligation for which subject companies are responsible.   Q. What conflicts arise around the source of compliance standards and their implementation?  Summary of MAFR's response: It must remain a matter of law. However, many argue that because it is only a matter of "compliance" and "ticking all the boxes", algorithms (which do not think or know anything) will do this, eliminating the need for lawyers and the law. This must be avoided. Furthermore, given the immense ambition of safeguarding systems, political and public authorities, businesses and stakeholders must join forces. They must not fight to bring each other down.   Q. What are the complexities of compliance law?  Summary of MAFR's response: I would not say "complexity", because although the regulations are complicated, compliance law is fairly simple and unified around its monumental goals of safeguarding systems, ensuring their future sustainability and protecting the people involved in them. However, it is a new branch of law that is still poorly understood and therefore sometimes poorly mastered. It therefore needs to be organised.   Q. What is your proposal for ordering it?  Summary of MAFR's response: Teaching more about compliance law will facilitate its organisation. The courts, to which all regulations converge through litigation, will participate in this organisation, which is necessary to ensure that regulations do not remain in silos and do not contradict each other when they have the same purpose, which constitutes their legal normativity. This new branch of law must also be articulated with all other branches of law. This is notably what the recently published book, L'obligation de compliance (The Obligation of Compliance), does. - Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art