All news

► Full Reference:  André, Ch., State sovereignty, popular sovereignty: what social contract for compliance?, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. -   ► Article Summary (done par the Author):  The “Compliance Monumental Goals” serve as vectors for “common” social values: the proposal is simple, but it seems both familiar and strange to a criminal lawyer. Familiar, because even if compliance transcends the borders of academic disciplines, it shares with criminal law a logic sanctioning attacks on social interests. Strange, because Monumental Goals convey social values by sweeping away all the learned discussions that have been going on since Beccaria about the foundations and axiological functions of punishment. Indeed, the social values promoted by Monumental Goals are “common” in every sense of the word. First, they are shared and internalized by the largest enterprises in the Western world, without the need for an international treaty on protected values. The question of sovereignty is overshadowed. Second, they are common in that they are commonplace, ordinary, approved of by most Western consumer-citizens: probity, equality, respect for the environment, who would not be in favour of respecting them? Hence it is in companies’ interest to communicate and diffuse, urbi and orbi, how they respect these Monumental Goals. The question of citizens’ consensus on values is sidestepped, as they are supposed to be derived from the obvious (even if the goals could be achieved by different means, or even contradict each other). Third, these values are common because they now enlist a multitude of communicants (the “compliance officer”, among others) who, more or less gracefully – the meticulous liturgy of compliance can put off some officiants and incite buffoonery – seek to spread the cult of these values at all levels of business. Since these values are respected, they are necessarily respectable: businesses become moralized by the multitude who respect them. Existence precedes essence, and the values conveyed contribute to the businesses’ raison d’être, beyond the pursuit of profit. The question of effectiveness vanishes, since these values are already there, regularly monitored, both internally and by public authorities. Sovereignty, citizenship, effectiveness: the logic of Compliance supplants the academic debates of criminal lawyers with practical solutions. Perhaps this is how the goals are “monumental”: vast, global, overwhelming. Compliance may not be the best of all worlds, but it is most certainly another world. -   📘  read the general presentation of the book in which this article is published -    

► Full Reference: Le Fur, A.-V., Ch.,  "Interest and “raison d’être” of the company: how do they fit with the Compliance Monumental Goals?, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. - ► Article Summary (done by the Author):  Companies would have a soul. The legislator thinks so, since the French law called "loi Pacte"  of 22 May 2019 obliges managers to act in the Corporate Interest and allows companies to formulate themselves a « raison d'être ». Compliance Law does the same, relying on companies to save the world from corruption, slavery, terrorism and global warming, thus achieving Monumental goals. At first glance, the contours of Corporate Interest and « raison d’être » of the company are not far removed from the notion of Compliance Monumental Goals. This is not surprising, since the objective that presided over their introduction into the French Civil Code is the same as that underlying Compliance Law : to rethink the place of the company in the global Society, by affirming long-term values or concerns. This is a reason to use these corporate law concepts in the context of an X-ray of the concept of Monumental Goals. However, a comparative approach is disappointing. The divergences between corporate notions and compliance lead to the conclusion that Company Law is not intended to impose anything other than a corporate public order. These notions being more philosophical than legal, Corporate Interest and « raison d'être » are assigned functions that limit their scope. Consequence of the previous description, the imperative nature of corporate rules cannot be compared with the nature of compliance: uncertain, they are also relative compared with the "violence" of compliance rules. The impact of the notions of Interest and « raison d'être » remains thus mainly internal to the company. According to a second approach, it cannot be ruled out that Corporate Interest and « raison d'être » allow for a better understanding of higher and universal values by Company Law. Corporate Interest may incorporate Compliance Monumental Goals while the « raison d'être » may constitute a perspective for the realization of these goals. The stakes are high : when the interest of the company, as a legal person and autonomous economic agent, joins the Monumental Goals, the means of achieving the latter are multiplied by internalizing them in all companies, not just the largest ones. However, despite all good intentions, a company is only governable if the compass does not become an elusive and indecisive vane; in other words, if legal certainty is respected. This is why a legal ordering of the concepts is necessary, which ultimately leads to a suggestion of their domain, content and scope.  -     📝 go to the general presentation of the book, 📘 Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published.   -

► Full Reference:  Petit, B., The Arrangement of the Monumental Goals of European Labour Law: a changing system with balances to be consolidated, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. -   ► Article Summary (done par the Author):   Starting from the premise that Law has the irreducible purpose of guaranteeing, in all circumstances, the Dignity of the person, it is possible to present the monumental goals assigned to labour law as a system based on a cardinal monumental goal (the guarantee of Dignity at work) from which a multitude of secondary monumental aims (fundamental rights at work) arise. This system is crossed by internal and external dynamics that force the equilibrium equations between the secondary monumental goals to constantly reinvent themselves. In Europe, two systems of Law coexist, each proposing its own equation: the Council of Europe and the European Union which, although they are working along to bring their systems into coherence, remain attached to their differences of approach.   -   📘 read the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published -  

Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Notes pour une synthèse sur le vif pour le colloque "Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance : radioscopie d'une notion" (Notes for an on the fly synthesis for the Colloquium "The Compliance Monumental Goals: Radioscopy for a Notion"), September 16, 2021.  -   ► Read the general programme of the Colloquium Compliance Law Monumental Goals ► Read the  presentation of the synthesis Report, notably its Summary.  - ► Methodology: The topic is not treated in a strictly personal point of view, as it will be in the book on The Compliance Monumental Goals, in an article devoted to "Defining Compliance Monumental Goals  and their branch of Law", more personal article. It will be even more clearly the expression of a personal vision of the definition of what is "Compliance" and what is "Compliance Law", with in particular the distinctions that should be done, in particular with "conformity" because these are these "Monumental Goals", a notion proposed in 2016  which makes it possible to distinguish the procedural notion of "conformity" (just obey) and the substantive notion of "Compliance Law". This article will include the multiple academic and technical references that should be done to do this.  But in the time allotted in a day's collloquium and because the purpose of a synthesis is to highlight on the spot what was common in the contributions heard, the document is based only on the different speechs made and is not enriched with technical references, nor does it refer to personal works. -   🔻read below the notes exhaustely taken

► Full reference: Bismuth, R., Compliance and Sovereignty: ambiguous relationships, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published. - ► Article Summary (done by the author): :  At first glance, the notion of Sovereignty is difficult to combine with Compliance. Indeed, Sovereignty is part of Public International Law in a logic of essentially territorial distribution of competences, while Compliance has developed and disseminated in companies with tools and methods which largely ignore borders. A closer look reveals more fundamentally three types of ambiguous interactions between the two. Compliance can first of all be understood as a tool allowing States, by relying on companies, to circumvent the obstacles and limits posed by a Sovereignty conceived in territorial terms and therefore to extend it. Such an approach can nevertheless lead to friction or even conflicts between Compliance and Sovereignty, the norms conveyed by the first not necessarily being in line with those imposed by the second. This is particularly true when the Compliance "Monumental Goals" are not unilaterally defined or are not intended to be. Finally, by infusing companies with instruments and methods that are reminiscent of sovereign functions, compliance can also allow us to imagine an emerging movement tending to gradually establish Corporate Sovereignty beyond that of States. - 📘  read the general presentation of the book in which this article is published

► co-organized between Laboratoire DANTE and the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), this colloquium) is the core manifestation of the 2021 series of colloquia devoted to the general theme of Compliance Monumental Goals. It will take place on 16th of September 2021, at the Maison du Barreau, in Paris. This first work is in French but  will be the basis of the book in English : Compliance Monumental Goals,    This book will be published in the Compliance & Regulation Series, co-published by the JoRC and Bruylant. ► Presentation of the colloquium Thematic: To understand the notion of "Monumental Goals", it is firstly necessary to take crossed perspectives on them, particularly through the prism of Labor Law, Environmental Law and Enterprise Law. Many questions appear. Does the notion of “Monumental Goals” present any substance in Law? Is it uniformly understood, or do specificities appear, forged by specific cultures and disciplinary practices? What are the sources and implicit references or echoes? Because even if we admit the part of novelty, there is undoubtedly an anchoring in traditional legal concepts, like the general interest or sovereignty. How does the shift from meta-legal (prima facie introduced by the concept) to legal take place, and where do any operational difficulties lie when legal actors are called upon to act? The question of a possible categorization of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored, through these three legal disciplines whose historicity, goals and implications for firms differ.   These reflections allow to ask why and how these "Monumental Goals" are developed. Indeed, what is the relevance of the association of "Monumental Goals" and Compliance? Beyond theoretical considerations relating to the meaning of Law, is this really an effective alloy encouraging companies to behave differently? By what ways? These questions arise in particular with regard to the imperatives of legal certainty and the operative nature of the concept. The question of "Monumental Goals" will thus be explored by the operational actors of compliance, both those who act within companies and those who act from the lato sensu State sphere, for understanding whether this notion is a pure rhetoric figure or constitutes a particularly promising lever for the evolution of market behavior.   ► with :  🎤 Christophe André, maître de conférences à l'Université Paris – Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University) 🎤 Guillaume Beaussonie, professeur à l'Université Toulouse-1-Capitole (law professor at Toulouse-1-Capitole University) 🎤 Regis Bismuth, professeur de droit à Sciences po, Paris (law professor at Sciences po Paris) 🎤 Marie-Emma Boursier, doyen  de l'Université Paris – Saclay (dean of the Paris-Saclay University) 🎤 Muriel Chagny, professeur l'Université Paris – Saclay, directrice du Laboratoire Dante (Professor at the Paris-Saclay University, director of the Laboratory Dante) 🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professeur à Sciences po (Paris) (Professor at Sciences Po Paris) 🎤 Isabelle Gavanon, avocate à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤 Emma Guernaoui, ATER à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas (ATER at Paris II Panthéon-Assas University) 🎤 Dominique Heintz, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤 Christian Huglo, avocat à la Cour d' appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤Dominique de La Garanderie, avocat à la Cour d'appel de Paris (attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal)  🎤 Anne-Valérie Le Fur, professeur à l'Université Paris – Saclay (Professor at Paris-Saclay University) 🎤 Anne Le Goff, secrétaire générale déléguée d'Arkéa (Deputy Secretary general at Arkéa) 🎤 Roch-Olivier Maistre, président du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (President of the French audiovisual regulation authority) 🎤 Marie Malaurie, professeur à l'Université Paris-Saclay (professor at the Paris-Saclay University) 🎤 Jérôme Marilly, avocat général à la Cour d'Appel de Paris (General attorney before the Paris Court of Appeal) 🎤 Benoît Petit, maître de conférences (HDR) à l'Université Paris-Saclay (lecturer at the Paris-Saclay University)  🎤 Jean-François Vaquieri, Secrétaire Général d'Enedis (Secretary General of Enedis) - Read a detailed presentation below:  

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Le Droit de la concurrence : des choix politiques pour son état futur – rapport de synthèse – ( ("Competition Law: political choices for its future state – Conclusion") , in Claudel, E. (ed.), Le Droit de la concurrence dans tous ses états ("Competition in all its states"), special issue, Gaz. Pal. , 15 Sept. 2021. This publication is in French, but the Working Paper which is the basis of this article is bilingual.  -   📅 this article follows the colloquium of the French Association Droit & Commerce in Deauville (France), the 25th  et 26th June 2021. -   ✏️ It is based on  the bilingual Working Paper built on the notes taken during the colloquium for establishing the conclusion which has been provided. -   Article English Summary: All of these contributions on the issue of the "Competition in all its states" highlighted the choices available for what could be this branch of Law tomorrow: choice of a political nature between various possible definitions of Competition Law.  In method, the main thing is that this definition be clear. For this, this definition must be based on a principle and that the goal pursued by competition law is simple, so that in a second step, competition law can be easily articulated on the one hand with other branches of law. (by the care of the judge, in particular), on the other hand with "policies", such as "competition policy", then other policies (by the care of political authorities, especially European). In essence, two conceptions of principle are opposed: either Competition Law will want to appropriate the goals of other branches, such as those of Regulatory and Compliance Law, or Competition Law will have the modesty to remain anchored in its definition as Market Law. This is the crossroads where we are.   -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Ex Ante Responsibility, Working Paper, December 2021. - 📝This Working Paper has been the basis for an article written in French, "La responsabilité Ex Ante", published in the Archives de Philosophie du droit (APD), in the book 📗La Responsabilité (2022). - ►  Working Paper Summary: Quel est le temps auquel s'articule la responsabilité ? La question est si classique que toutes les réponses ont été dessinées : si l'on est responsable plus aisément par rapport au temps, car l'on peut alors plus aisément faire un lien entre la situation appréhendée, sa réalisation dans le passé la rendant plus facilement connaissable, et le poids de "responsabilité" que l'on impute sur une personne, l'on peut articuler la responsabilité avec le futur. Si l'on brise le poids de cette responsabilité avec un évènement ou une situation, par exemple. Le Principe Responsabilité de Jonas ou l'Ethique de la Responsabilité font ainsi voyager la Responsabilité dans le temps, par un rapport entre le Droit et l'Ethique.  D'ailleurs l'on pourrait soutenir que le Droit peut faire ce qu'il veut et imputer une responsabilité à quiconque pour le temps qu'il désigne, par exemple désigne comme porteur d'une responsabilité, c'est-à-dire d'un poids, celui qu'il veut. Le "responsable" serait alors le titulaire d'une sorte de "poids pur", qui le charge parce que le Droit l'a voulu pour le temps qu'il veut, par exemple un devoir d'agir pour que le futur soit dessiné comme le veut le Droit, alors même que le Responsable n'a rien à se reprocher dans le passé.  Mais les Cours constitutionnelle défendent un rapport minimal entre la Responsabilité et le poids que celle-ci fait porter une personne, fut-t-elle morale, gardant ainsi le lien consubstantiel entre le Droit et la Morale, la technique juridique de la Responsabilité ne pouvant équivaloir à celle d'un prélèvement obligatoire. Ainsi l'idée d'une Responsabilité Ex Ante est simple dans son principe (I). Elle est celle d'un poids juridiquement posé sur une personne soit par elle-même (engagement), soit par la Loi ou par le Juge sur une personne de faire quelque chose pour que n'advienne pas quelque chose qui adviendrait ou pour qu'advienne quelque chose qui n'adviendrait pas si elle ne le faisait pas. Mais les conditions juridiques pour admettre un tel poids alors même que le lien avec une situation passée serait brisé est plus difficile (II). On continue certes continuer à voir dans le futur le passé, ce qui facilite le voyage dans le temps, et fonda par exemple le contrôle Ex Ante du contrôle des concentrations. Mais l'on peut se briser même de cette facilité et regarder non plus le rapport entre le passé et le futur, mais le présent et le futur : ce que l'on sait déjà aujourd'hui du futur, ce qui met en jeu le rapport entre le Droit et la Science ; ce que l'on observe de l'emprise de la personne présente sur le moment présent, c'est-à-dire le Pouvoir, ce qui fait en jeu le rapport entre le Droit et l'Economie politique. Dans cette dimension-là, la contrainte de la Responsabilité Ex Ante est alors maniée par le Juge, dont l'office lui-même devient un office Ex Ante. Les pouvoirs obligés Ex Ante par une telle responsabilité maniée par le Juge étaient les personnes en situation de pouvoir, sont non seulement les entreprises, mais encore les Etats, qui perdent le privilège – partagé avec les contractants – de disposer juridiquement du futur, et notamment en leur sein le Législateur.  Une telle révolution, qui se déroule sous nos yeux, s'explique parce qu'il faut agir maintenant pour que le futur ne soit pas catastrophique. La science nous informe qu'il le sera entéléchiquement. Il est donc juridiquement requis de désigner des responsables, non pas parce qu'ils auraient fait quelque chose, la dimension Ex Post n'étant pas le sujet, mais pour qu'ils fassent quelque chose, la Responsabilité Ex Ante étant un élément central de cette nouvelle branche du Droit qu'est le Droit de la Compliance.   

This scientific manifestation is placed under the scientific responsibility of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. It is organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC). It constitutes the inaugural colloquium of the cycle of colloquia in 2021 on the general topic Compliance Jurisdictionalisation.     The work will then be incorporated into the two books La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance and Compliance Jurisdictionalization which will be published in the Regulations & Compliance series, co-edited by the JoRC with Dalloz for the book in French and with Bruylant for the book in English. This colloquium will be held in Paris in 2021.   Presentation of the topic: Because Compliance Law is the extension of Regulatory Law, it is experiencing the same movement of Juridictionnalisation. First of all conceived as the goal of protecting systems and people, even if they seem beyond reach, this has led to the establishment of private companies as judges of themselves, to be structurally the judges and judged, those who act and those who observe.  The duty of vigilance has increased this transformation. As in Regulatory Law, which is an Ex Ante branch of Law, the procedure, which is an Ex Post branch of Law, governs the functioning of companies, transfiguring Company Law under the term "governance". The shock and transformation once received by Administrative Regulatory Authorities has been heightened by the fact that companies have been further seized by the repressive Courts on the one hand and by an American repressive Law on the other hand, two different cultures. There are therefore many technical difficulties that must first be identified and formulated and then resolved. The easiest is in a first step to ask the following questions : Why? Who? How? When? Where? Toward What?              

An August 10, 2021 New York Times article chronicles the relationship presented as "tumultuous" between President Biden and Facebook, the president, in person or through his closest administration, blaming Mark Zuckerberg, in person or through his closest collaborators, for the Facebook insufficient action against vaccine misinformation: ➡️📝Inside the White House Facebook Rift Over Vaccine Misinformation.  The article insists on the opposition between the two entities: " Frustrations grew behind the scenes among top leaders on both sides, potentially hurting the government's efforts to overcome the pandemic ". And reports many facts for this conclusion. But is it not possible to propose  another reading of these events? A reading that would be more strategic and more optimistic with regard to what is the obligation of digital operators obliged by Compliance Law. -   In fact, if we come back to the subject itself, it is a question of fighting against disinformation, including that which is raging about vaccination against Covid (the causes of the spread of the virus, its modes of spread and the effects of different vaccines, in particular) is just one example. To stem the health crisis, public policies for economic issues do not encounter the same major difficulty as public policies for health care: disinformation. On this major question, see the presentation of the May 2021 colloquium organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculty of Law of Montpellier on ➡️📅 Public Norms and Compliance in time of Crisis: Monumental Goals put a test, the work being the basis of contributions in the book ➡️📘 Compliance Monumental Goals.  Faced with the spread of disinformation, especially during a health crisis, not only the jurisdictional Ex Post, certainly legitimate to sanction disinformation, is not enough in such a fight but the administrative action is not enough either. because the digital space has for characteristic not so much the novelty of these manipulations (which do not differ from the preceding methods) but their speed of propagation  and their dissemination which until now had never reached such dazzling and such dust. Faced with this, only a mechanism which entrusts, willingly or by force (the " free will" referring to the points of contact between Compliance Law and Corporate Social Responsibility, the "force" referring to the repression strongly present in the Compliance Law) to companies in a position to do something (what the banking sector referred to as "systemic firms" and which can be qualified more generally as "crucial companies" (➡️📝 Frisian- Roche, M.-A., "Proposition for a notion: the "Crucial Operator", 2006), the function of blocking or even destroying the crucible of disinformation is concretely possible (➡️📓 Frison-Roche, M.- A., The contribution of Compliance Law in the Governance of Interne, 2019). But many protest before such a mission which, under the pretext of "necessity" and under the guise of "weight" given to these companies, also gives them considerable powers over people: thus many have criticized the closure of Donald Trump's account as being an illegitimate political act and many saw the May 5, 2021 Facebook Oversight Board decision as an intolerable takeover of power, with the company allowing itself to become a complete legal system on its own : for one analysis of this very important decision, and commented on, often in a severe manner, but for a more approving approach because in the perspective of Compliance Law, the internalisation of repressive and jurisdictional functions is more of a principle: ➡️📧 " By its decision of May 5, 2021, the Oversight Board imposed a Compliance program on Facebook, May 2021; for a perspective that remains critical ➡️📝Heymann, J.," The Legal Nature of the "Supreme Court" of Facebook ", in➡️📘 Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022).   These criticisms are on several levels; they can be summarized as follows: a company maintaining a platform on which contents may be published by anyone and controlling these contents would exercise "censorship", which would be unacceptable with regard to the freedom of speech; a company controlling the contents carries out an activity of judgment, while only a judge or at least a public authority could do it, therefore it would be unacceptable; a company controlling contents would exercise control over what is socially admissible, which would be a political activity, and a company is not politically legitimate to govern us.   These arguments are solid, especially from a judicial perspective. Even if it is possible to articulate the fight against the disinformation which rages thanks to the digital novelty (), and the constitutional freedom of expression (Minow, M., "How the government can support a free press and cut disinformation ", 2021), the risk of a weakening by courts, whether American or other, for example in France where judges have criticized the companies powers, even in China where it is in the name of privacy that the new control on the technological sector is taking place …. If the federal government of the United States, because it wants to carry out its public health policy and has little influence on the policies of the states, some of which are hostile to vaccination or believe that all of this is there Everyone's business, wants Facebook to exercise its power to deactivate the accounts of those who practice disinformation, especially in vaccine matters, or even exercise it in political matters (Timothy Snyder having shown that the practice of disinformation in the matter put endangering the American political system itself: ➡️📧 "Listening to Timothy Snyder: the United States like Europe defend democracy, but Europe uses Compliance Law more for that", June 2021), then it is necessary but enough that the Government accuses Facebook of "killing people" by not doing it. So, the Government allows the company to do it. This is what President Biden has just done. This is to be compared with the position taken in May 2021 by the US federal administration allowing companies to require employees to both return to work on sites and be vaccinated. This was already a sign that it is indeed the federal administration which, in order to make its public vaccination policy "effective", relies on companies, with the necessary powers for them to play their role:  see the analysis of this communication from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of May 28, 2021 ➡️📧 "In Compliance Law, the political authority must clearly tell the company the extent of its power; fault from which the company will pass from the status of executor to that of Legislator ", June 2021.   It is therefore not an "opposition" but a strategic alliance.   Moreover, Facebook has just deactivated a series of accounts which systematically practice disinformation in matters of vaccination. The fact that the President of the United States characterized their inaction as "murder" makes it much easier for them when their action will be challenged in court. Because in front of a judge vis-a-vis whom it will be reproached for violating, by its too offensive action, the freedoms of the people the company will be able to take advantage of the fact that it was made accused of "murder" for not having had enough offensive action, and this by the Head of State. We are legally close to the hypothesis of "the order given by the legitimate authority". This reinforces an opinion expressed in March 2020 according to which Facebook, when it refers people to public information centers for the fight against the virus, is not acting either as a publisher or as part of its social responsibility but executes purely and simply its obligations arising from Compliance Law: ➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Facebook, Facebook, le coronavirus et la Compliance", March 2020. In addition, as in any Compliance Law mechanism, such execution of their Compliance obligation by Facebook and all others who follow the exchanges between the crucial digital company and the Federal Executive, is supervised by the Regulatory Authorities, administrative authorities before which the operator can be prosecuted for failure, for example for not only for having done too much but also for having not done enough. This is particularly true in France, where the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel – CSA French Superior Audiovisual Council) supervises digital operators in their obligations to limit the spread of infox, specifically questioning operators on the due diligence carried out and the results obtained, a specific annual report being published each year (see the report published on July 30, 2020 on the "application and effectiveness" of the fight against disinformation to be carried out by the platforms, in its English version).   -   ► s'inscrire à la Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®  

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le droit de la Compliance : un outil stratégique pour une Europe souveraine (Compliance law: a strategic tool for a sovereign Europe), interview with Jean-Philippe Denis, recorded on July 3, 2021 and broadcast on September 17, 2021 -   🎥 Watch the interview, as broadcast on Xerfi Canal channels.    🎥Watch the interview enhanced with French subtitles - ►Summary: Compliance Law powerfully and clearly helps to build a sovereign Europe.  Compliance Law is not the annex of Competition Law; it is another branch of Law, which aims instead to rely on the de facto power of companies, when they are in a position to achieve the "Monumental Goals" that the Political Authorities have decided to achieve, which requires an alliance between them and those companies in a position to achieve these "Monumental Goals". Companies can do this because they are in a position to do so, in that they are well located to act, have the information, the technology and the adequate financial means.) Compliance is a construction tool, and not, as it is still sometimes presented, a means to limit the ability of those who are concretely able to build, i.e. the companies. The architect remains and must remain the Politics. But the company remains the master of the means to achieve these goals, and free to duplicate them in its own care, via CSR, "raison d'être" and ethics.  

►  An article published on July 14, 2021 by The Wall Street Journal, "Brain Implant Lets Man 'Speak' After Being Silent for More Than a Decade", relays the information that it is now possible, on an experimental basis, to implant in the brain a device allowing a person deprived by a neurological accident to speak to be able to express himself again by writing his thoughts directly on a computer screen, on which the words thought are displayed in sentences. - Several years of "fundamental" research, notably on the part of Facebook, which, in particular by subsidizing the French professor of neurosciences Stanislas Dehaene, in a comparison between the learning development of the brain and the development of "deep learning", have been successful. to allow people who have lost the use of the voice to write directly on screens without this vocal medium by going directly from thought to writing. This leads to three reflections, putting Law and Technology at the center: 1. at first glance, speech being only a medium between thought and expression, it would be conceivable to do without it; 2. However, it is required to draw a parallel with the new technology of "emotional recognition" by which thoughts are accessible to third parties, which thwarts the fundamental right to make one's thoughts inaccessible to others;  The news has shown precisely that this technology, making possible to capture the true thoughts of others despite feigned facial expressions, poses a problem with regard to the fundamental right to lie or to remain silent (see in this regard 📧 MaFR, "Compliance and Ethics Technologies may be inadmissible "in themselves" and conceiving of their "ethical use" is therefore not admissible: practical case on the control of workers' emotions "). 3. By anticipating the possible use of this new technology and the legal reaction to this potentiality, the same question raises whether, per se, such an implantation of a tool for "capturing thoughts directly in the brain" to obtain their "direct translation on a screen" should not be considered as the equivalent of capturing thoughts, just as infringing on everyone's fundamental right to keep their thoughts inaccessible. Here again, the fact that in one or two cases, this made it possible to cure a person does not legitimize the technology in itself. Likewise, the fact that the person "consents" is not sufficient to legitimize what may be a per se attack on the dignity of the human person if the technology has the effect of capturing thoughts with a loss of control. the person concerned. For the moment, in the description given by the researchers according to the article which relates the innovation, it is the transmitter who controls the technology but the elimination of the medium of speech or writing deserves to be conceptualized, in the loss of isolation of the individual, isolation to which the Western tradition has often associated Freedom. - ► s'inscrire à la Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®

► Full Reference: Cl. Debourg, "La compliance au stade du contrôle des sentences arbitrales" ("Compliance at the arbitral award review stage"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, pp. 369-405.  - 📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published  - ► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): -