Economic Law, Regulation and Compliance

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐subscribe to the  Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance, Artificial Intelligence and Business Management: the right measure" ("Compliance, Intelligence artificielle et gestion des entreprises : la juste mesure"), participation to the Conference coordinated by Mustapha Mekki, L'intelligence artificielle et la gestion des entreprises. July 1st, 2022.  - 🎥 see the conference (in French) -  consult the slides having been used as brief notes for deliver the lecture (inf French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper having been used as basis for this conference - 📝This work will be the basis for an article. - ► Summary of the Lecture: Of the next European Regulation on artificial intelligence, the European Commission has a quite neutral conception of AI for obtaining a consensus between the Member States, while the Regulators and certain States have a more substantial conception of technology, wanting its power to be used to protect people, firstly from these new tools themselves, secondly from what is an amplification of the evils of the classic world, such as hate or misinformation. This is the reflection of two conceptions of Compliance. Firstly, Compliance can be defined as neutral processes that increase the effectiveness of what would be the obligation for companies or their desire for efficient risk management (in particular the consideration of "legal risks") to prove being "conform" to all regulations that are applicable to itself and all persons to whom the firm is accountable. This is often referred to as the "compliance obligation" or "obligation of conformity". This conception implies considerable practical consequences for the company which, in order to succeed in this "total exploit", would then have to resort to artificial intelligence tools constituting a "total and infallible solution", which mechanically generate for it the obligation to "know " all the "regulatory mass", to detect all "non-compliances", to conceive its relationship to the Law in terms of "risk of non-compliance", fully supported by Compliance by Design which could, without human intervention , eliminate legal risk and ensure "compliance total efficiency" in Ex Ante. The "legal price" of this technological dream is extremely high because all the "regulatory" requirements will then be transformed into obligations of result, any failure generating liability. The Compliance probationary system will become overwhelming for the company, both in terms of burden of proof, means of proof, and transfers, without exemption from proof. Objective responsibilities for others will multiply. The "law of conformity" will multiply Ex Ante systemic penalties, the border with criminal law being less and less preserved. It is essential to avoid this, both for businesses and for the Rule of Law. For this, we must use Artificial Intelligence to its proper extent: it may constitute a "massive aid", without ever claiming to be a total and infallible solution, because it is the human who must be at the center of the compliance system functioning thank to the firms and not the machinery. For this, it is necessary to adopt a substantial conception of Compliance Law (and not a sort of Conformity Law or Obedience Law). It does not at all cover all the applicable regulations and it is not at all "neutral", being in no way a series of processes. This new branch of Law is substantially built on Monumental Goals. These are either of a negative nature (preventing a systemic crisis from happening, in many but specific perspectives: banking, financial, health, climate, etc.), or of a positive nature (building a better balance, in particular between human beings, in the company and beyond). In this conception which appears more and more strongly, artificial intelligence finds its place, more modest. As Compliance Law is based on information, Artificial Intelligence is essential to capture it and make first connections, first stages for successive analyses, done by human beings, making what is essential: the commitment of the company, both by the leaders and by all those who are "embarked" by a "culture of Compliance" which is at both built and common. This restores the required seal between Criminal Law and what can be asked of the mechanical use of Artificial Intelligence; this puts the obligation of means back as a principle. This restores the principal place to the lawyer and the compliance officer, so that the culture of compliance is articulated with the specificities of a sector and the identity of the company itself. Indeed, the culture of compliance being inseparable from a culture of values, Compliance by design requires a dual technique, both mathematical and legal culture. It is why European Compliance Law, because it is rooted in the European humanist tradition, is a model. - For further: 📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022 📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022 📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, 2021 📓Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'apport du Droit de la Compliance à la Gouvernance d'Internet, 2019  📕Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019 📕Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017 📕 Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Internet, espace d'interrégulation, 2016 📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance law,  2022, 📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis, 2022 📝 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Assessment of Whistleblowing, and the duty of Vigilance, 2022 📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Drawing up Risk Maps as an obligation and the paradox of he "compliance risks", 2021 -

  ► Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., The part of Compliance Law in the fight against Corruption and Climate Change, in Paris Arbitration Week (PAW), Compliance: Corruption and Climate Change – how legal systems adapt?, Jones Day, March 29, 2022. Debate with Mathias Audit coordinated by Claire Pauly, Vice-President of the Paris Arbitration Week.  - ► Presentation of the intervention: After the presentation made by Mathias Audit of the consideration of facts of corruption, notably by the red flags method, in an arbitration trial, it seems a low-performing system of proof in compliance: the more diligent a party is in showing that it tried to meet its compliance obligations, the more it is exposed to demonstrating its own failure to doing so.  It seems a perversity … Therefore, I can understand why companies often so dislike Compliance Law because more they make efforts, more they put money and more they are punished… But this representation is not totally exact. My first observation is about the definitions themselves. It is particularly important to have a precise definition of “compliance obligations”, to not confuse them with obligations coming from Criminal Law. The confusion between Criminal Law and Compliance Law is frequent, maybe because what Compliance Law want to eradicate is also prohibited by Criminal Law, for instance corruption. Indeed, technically criminal legal rules and compliance legal rules have many points of contacts, but they are not the same: the obligations are different, the legal persons obliged are different, the reasoning are different the purposes are different. Because the general definition of Criminal Law and Compliance Law are different. Criminal Law, very old branch of Law, which prohibits and sanctions corruption, does it for everyone because the singular behavior is wrong (to corrupt; to be corrupted). Compliance Law is a very new branch of Law, is a systemic branch of economic Law, which wants to eradicate in the future mechanisms because they destroy economic systems, such as corruption does. Its wants that not to protect moral values but to protect economic systems. Therefore, Compliance Law asks some entities, large companies, to do something only because they are in position to do so: to detect and to prevent this corruption, in order to obtain in the future, the protection against this systemic risk threating the economic systems. The compliance legal tools are more in Ex Ante than in Ex Post: risk mapping, audit, code of conduct, training, obtention of information through the chains of suppliers. The proof to give is not the non-corruption everywhere from everyone but this concrete action of prevention and education, companies being entities helping public authorities in this global fight. More precisely, in this definition Compliance Law is not the general obligation to obey the regulations applicable (because this is simply the definition of Law itself, applicable to everybody). Compliance Law is a very new branch of Law which exists only for some systemic “global policies” (as the title of your manifestation says) applicable only on systemic entities (large companies) in a global perspective: for instance, fighting corruption, fighting money laundering, fighting climate change, fighting discrimination between human beings. In your example, for fighting corruption, specific legal obligations are taken, such as FCPA (with extraterritorial effects) or in French legal system the so-called the 2016 “Sapin 2” Law. These obligations don’t concern everybody: they concern entities in position to do so: large companies. My second remark is about the burden of proof. These compliance obligation or compliance duties are obligations of means. Companies are obliged to adopt Compliance plans, organize risk mapping, and so on. A lot of them organize them through code of compliance, or code of ethic, or code of corporate social responsibility, because Compliance Law is in an intimacy with Corporate Law. Because Compliance Law is a very concrete branch of law, these disposals are adopted at the level of the group and replicated in the contracts with suppliers. But he success of these compliance tools is only an obligation of means. For instance the supervisory authority does not require the company to have seen all the risks, in their existence or their exact quantification. In this sense, about money laundering, the French Financial Markets Authority said that the setup of these compliance tools must be “effective”, but after that the company must only do its “best efforts” to aim an “efficient” result (obligation de moyens). The French Regulatory Authority for the digital space says the same about the eradication of speeches of hate that Compliance Law oblige digital companies to fight (using the term of obligation de moyens). Moreover, about corruption, the Commission of sanction of the French Anticorruption Agency said in a decision of July 2019 that the firm is free to choose the technics to detect and to prevent the corruption (confirming that Compliance is not just following what the Regulator says), but offered a legal certainty:  if the company just follows what the Regulators had said in its guideline (rule based compliance behavior), it is no more possible to punish it. My third remarks could be a proposal for a more efficient system of proof. It is true that the burden of proof is on the company’s shoulders. But the object of proof is not the absence of corruption (it would not be possible…). The object of proof is the existence of due diligence to detect and prevent corruption. Companies must prepare that, must constitute these proofs by advance.  “Due diligence” is a legal concept frequently used in Compliance Law. Regulators, supervisors, and courts ask companies to show the reality of these diligences. It would not be sufficient to present the cost of Compliance… It will be sufficient to show the effectivity of Compliance programs freely adopted, taking in consideration the guidelines released by public authorities. Public authorities say they want to help companies to diffuse an effective “culture of compliance” : a dialogue with civil and corporate courts, not only with criminal courts would be efficient, for instance for the protection of human rights.    In a second part of this debate, on Climate change and Compliance, Claire Pauly asked the question: "My question is two-fold: do you consider that climate change issues should be treated in the same way as corruption issues? And do you think that arbitrators are well suited to tackle those issues, by upholding the method applied to determine and demonstrate corruption issues?". The response has been: Firstly, on the technical similarity between fighting Corruption and fighting Climate Change in Compliance Law, it is the same perspective effectively. If we come back to the definition of Compliance Law, the Compliance tools are organized to obtain in the future systemics results, such as no more corruption, no more money laundering, what we can name “Monumental goals”. This is a political decision: to design the future for excluding some systemic catastrophes. Corruption is an example of systemic risk; but climate change is another one. Fighting against Climate Change is a Monumental Goal, of the same nature than fighting Corruption. As everyone knows, we suffer of a lack of tools to address one of this fundamental challenge of our times which is climate change (more difficult than corruption…). But we are lucky to have some Compliance legal tools: we need to use them, because we have so few techniques about this Climate issue… And Compliance Law is the more adequate branch of Law because it is an Ex-Ante branch of Law : generally, its obligations are on the future, and the Climate change drama is in the future also. We can already see that Compliance Law is applicable to Climate Change issue It is easy to see it through the legal techniques.  In the French legal system, the Sapin 2 law invented in 2016 some new compliance techniques, such as risk mapping, audit, due diligence, to detect and prevent corruption. One year after, in 2017, the so-called Loi Vigilance took the same techniques, copying exactly the legal dispositions of Sapin 2 in this law to oblige large companies to detect and to prevent violation of human rights and environmental obligation, not only inside the corporate group but also through the supply chains. The manager will be accountable for that. On February 23, 2022, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a European Directive in the same direction of a “global policy” to impose a “corporate sustainability due diligence” on large companies, notably for fighting climate change. This new text will be effective in two years in the Internal legal systems. By a rules-based analysis and a principle-based analysis, we can see this is the same reasoning. Of course, this “corporate sustainability due diligence” is only an obligation of means. But it is extremely ambitious, linked to the direct consideration of the Corporate Social Responsibility. And I guess it will be efficient because all these tools are not only Ex Post but also Ex Ante: when the issue is to exclude the catastrophic perspective of the disappearance of the humankind on our planet, having Compliance Law, this Ex-Ante branch of law, is so precious!   Secondly, about the role of Arbitration in this issue, I am tempted to say: everyone is required in this global crucial policy! It is quite difficult for a national court to decide on this sort of issue because Climate change is a global issue, while arbitrators are global judges. Technically it is necessary and technically possible that Arbitration takes its place, because these due diligences about detection, prevention, action for a better Climate balance are organized non only in corporate mechanisms, such as code of conduct, corporate commitments, or manager remuneration calculation, but also a lot of contractual dispositions. We will see a lot of new legal techniques: a lot of international public global policies will be adopted. The obligation to give information about that not only to investor but also to stakeholders will be adopted worldwide. The technique of “compliance by design” will be used on the corporate policy of fighting against Climate change. Meanwhile, the classical branch of law, were Compliance Law steps in, will remain active, such as International Law, Corporate Law, Tort Law Contract Law, where Arbitration is so central. So, in short, your question was: are Arbitrators able to deal with climate change issue? my response is: “oh, yes!” - ► Read the repport made by the  fait par la Paris Week of Arbitration ( on the distinction between Compliance Law and Criminal Law, and their articulation) -   Pour aller plus loin⤵️ 📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed), Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022. 📘Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, 2022. -  

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Legal Focus: Compliance Ex Ante, in GAIA-X, Toward Automated Compliance in the Data Economy , November 30,  2021, online -   Read the program. Listen to the intervention.   Intervention Summary: Compliance Law has two senses and GAIA-X is a perfect illustration. Firstly, to respect rules and show in Ex Ante permanently this respect (procedural definition) ; secondly, to pretend certain specific "Monumental Goals" (substantial definition). In this second sens, Compliance Law is very different from Competition Law: it required in Ex Ante collaboration, transparency, stability to reach these Monumental Goals around the respect and protection of Humans, while Competition Law is based on fighting,  mobility and trade without obligation Ex Ante, just sanction Ex Post if a prohibitive behavior occurs.  GAIA-X is based on Compliance Law, established for the purpose of a European Data Industry, a Monumental Goal linked to the Sovereignty and people's protection: it must structurally oblige its members to collabore for this goals, notably through its policy rules (first sens).  It is also a part and subject of the European Union Law. In the sense, its members must obey European Regulatory system (second sens). The both are narrowly linked because the European legal system has the same purpose of sovereignty, internalization of goals in enterprises and individuals' protection: GDPR, Cybersecurity, Digital Services Regulation, etc. : members must show permanently they do it actively. Because the purposes of GAIA-X and the purpose of the European Union Law are now the same in the Compliance Law the respect of letter's Law but also the respect of spirit's Law matters. Both are Ex Ante. Therefore, Compliance by design, which is also Ex Ante, is adequate.   Automated Compliance (and automated Certification) are tools to obey and reach the Monumental Goal. GDPR has specific dispositions (articles 24 and 42) about them, but more generally the efficiency these tools are validated by Regulatory Body, and Courts notably through the design of Smart Contrats.  It could be prudent to put in adition some human Compliance control because, by definition, an Automated Compliance is just the technological transposition (second level) of legal norme (first level) and cannot create new normes.  This is why the more important in this conception in Ex Ante of Compliance by this marriage between Law and Technology is to keep in mind not only the letters put in the algorithms but only the spirit of Compliance Law. -   Go back to the previous intervention about Compliance Law as an adequate branch of Law for GAIA-X (November 2020)

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Chair for "The temporal dimension: Imminence and Intertemporally", in Climate Change Cases before National and International Courts Cross-fertilization and Convergence", November 27, 2021, Paris.  -   read the program   Summary of the panel presentation: The specific topic of our panel is the “temporal dimension” of the judicial cases of Climate change. We shall listen to two great experts on this topic, which is Time. Listening the other previous speakers, I understand how this topic is important, because Climate Change requires an immediate action and it create a political issue, because everyone comes before courts. A basis and fundamental problem, because the times are not adjusted.  let's come back to basic notions, to have three times : “past, present, future”.   The issue of Climate Change is in the Future, the necessity of Action is in the Present and the basis temporal question is to know if Courts are the bodies adequate to responde ; maybe it is inevitable that Judge must be recreate their office because the time of the classical judicial office is the Past. Immediately, this simple et huge problem appears : in a classical repartition, the judge is the legal character to intervenir for the Past, the present (maybe is for you and me), and the future is the time for the State, and more precisely for the Parliament. But the climate change is a huge topic, not in the past, not in the present, but in the future. Therefore a gap exists between the time of the topic and the time of the court before the case is explained for obtaining a solution : how to give a good answer ? Judge maybe must travel in time, from past to future …. Maybe, he must, but might he? Classically, the judge can anticipate a very next future, but not the more distant and systemic future. Climate change belongs to the second one. This is why the title of this panel is non only about the necessity to take in consideration the “imminence” but also the “intertemporally” : maybe court are the sole able to create this intertemporality between Past and Future, and by this way to obtain from States and companies to do something immediately !   By two legal ways.    Courts can stay in Past, supervising States, if they dispose of effective legal decisions taken by States in the past about Climate Change (essentially Paris Agreement, for instance transposed in the French legal system by a formal law). This is why an efficient judicial solution would be the possibility for the courts to oblige State to implement their more or less committment they had taken in the past for the future (as the Conseil d’État did in the Commune de Grande-Synthe Cas Law). Even for that, the courts must adopt a creative notion of what is a commitment from a State through a Law… ; as they must do about private companies comitment (in their codes of conduct or soft law of corporate social responsability).    But what to do if States didn’t take such commitment ? Some can allege Courts are not Parliaments and are not legitimate to rule for the future … It is a political issue, a very classical one but very accurate for Climate change (where States and companies are face to courts…) and maybe  And as our colleague said, judicial system is quite technically weak to concretize human rights.   Therefore, the second way, more innovative, est the new use of Tort Law : no more a liability Ex Post, but a responsibility Ex Ante. In every legal system, even in Civil Law systems, Tort Law is conceived by courts (for instance in French Law).  If the new reasoning is conveived in Ex Ante, Tort Law must be a set of legal tools to reach the monumental tools to reach the "Monumental Goal" (being by nature future) which is the Climate Change stopping.  In this teleological reasoning, the admissibility and the choice remedies, must be adapted to obtain what is central : the effectivity and the efficiencicy.  In this sens, the judgement between two parties (which was an Ex Post act) may be conceived as an systemic efficient action (which was an Ex Ante act), because it must be.  -        

  ► Référence complète: Frison-Roche, M.A., Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la  compétitivité internationale (" ("Assessment of Whistleblowing and Vigilance Duty with regard to international competitiveness"),  in Benzoni, L., Deffains, B. et Frison-Roche, M.-A.(dir.) , Effectivité de la Compliance et Compétitivité internationale("Compliance Effectivity and International Competitiveness"), seminar co-organised by the  Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Centre de recherche sur l'Économie et le Droit (CRED)  of the Panthéon-Assas University, November 4, 2021.  -   ►This intervention is thematic ; it is articulated with those more general carried out in introduction by Bruno Deffains particularly focused on the necessarily global scope of Compliance and in conclusion by Laurent Benzoni on Compliance as a potential new pillar of industrial policy, the whole of the colloquium having been conceived by the three of us. - 📅 read the semirar program    📅 this scientific event is part of the 2021 colloquia cycle, organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Universities partners, on the general theme of Compliance Monumental Goals. -   🚧  read the bilingual Working Paper, basis of this conference -   ►see the slides used during the conference -   ► Conference Summary: First of all and independently of the technical topic itself which, as the slides show, is focused on these two techniques based on Information which are the Whistleblowing and the Vigilance duty, it is essentiel to pose that the techniques themselves are conceived totally  differently depending on whether Compliance Law is conceived as a mechanical process and totally binding to fully comply with all applicable regulations and to demonstrate it in advance, under the threat of terrible fines, this definition being the both completely frightening and meaningless since what these applicable regulations contains is irrelevant, in which case the prospect of competitiveness boils down to notions of costs and also procedural considerations of foreseeability and legal certainty; or if Compliance Law is conceived as a new and substantial branch of Law Ex Ante developed to detect and prevent the systemic crises being before us, of which the climate crisis is unfortunately the epigone and which requires above all Action, an action of such magnitude which requires the alliance of all forces, that of States, companies, courts and people, in a renewal of concepts, particularly legal ones, and in the indifference of territories, which puts Compliance immediately at its right level: the world, because the scientifically emerging crisis is global, the so-called "extraterritoriality" theme now being misnamed. From this new general conception, the Vigilance obligation, about which so much was said when it was imposed in France in 2017, is the advanced point, soon taken up in Europe and whose scope must be naturally global, because that Compliance Law is consubstantially global. Taking up more technically the legal techniques of Compliance and confronting them with the Competitiveness of firms, it is necessary that these Compliance Tools do not harm this Competitiveness because Compliance Law , supporting immense ambitions, can only function through an alliance between political  wills (with great pretensions, i.e. save the planet) and the entities which are able to concretize them (the crucial economic operators): the Compliance tools designed by legal systems must preserve the companies which put them in place and never favor their competitors. On the basis of this principle, it is possible to assess these two legal techniques,  namely the whistleblowing and the Vigilance duty,  which both capture Information, which, as such, gives them a uniqueness and places them in the global Competition for Information. Taking the whistleblowing first, it appears that its first beneficiary is the company itself since it discovers a weakness and can therefore remedy it. This is why, beyond the principle of protection of the whistleblower by the access of somebody to the legal statute conceived in France by the law known as "Sapin 2", it is criticized that all the incentives are not used for that the holder of such information transmits it to the manager and that the same law continues to require the absence of financial counterpart, the "heroic figure of the whistleblower and the refusal of his remuneration depriving the company of a means information and improvement. The American solution is better and tt is regrettable that the law transposing the European Directive maintains this ineffective conception. But French legislation has on the contrary developed the right incentive as to the person whom the information must be transmitted to is the manager, then externally if the latter does nothing. The solution is better that the American solution because the incentive is thus made to push the internal manager to act and put an remedy to the internal dysfunction, which increases the competitiveness of the company. Even more, even if it seems counter-intuitive, the French Vigilance Duty greatly increases the competitiveness of the companies which are subject to it. Indeed, the 2017 Law by obliging them to prevent and fight against  human rights and environment violations has tacitly given them all the necessary powers to do so, in particular the power to capture Information on third-party companies, including ( and even above all) those which are not subject to transparency obligations. In this, companies, insofar as they are personally responsible, hold a supervisory power over others, a power which allows Compliance Law to globalize and which, in the process, increases their own power. This is why the obligation of vigilance is in many respects a boon for the companies which are subject to it. The resumption of the mechanism by the next European Directive, itself indifferent to the territory, will only strengthen this global power on other firms, even foreign ones. - ► This  conférence et le document de travail servent de base à un article dans un ouvrage : 📝This conference and the Working Paper constitute the basis for an article:  📕  in its French version in the book  Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, in the Series    Régulations & Compliance  📘  in its English version in the book Compliance Monumental Goals, in the Series    Compliance & Regulation -  

Full  Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Ne jamais se passer des juges et des avocats dans le Droit de la Compliance ("Never exclude Judges and Lawyers in Compliance Law" ,  in Frison-Roche, M.-A., Morel-Maroger, J. et Schiller, S. (dir.), Quels juges pour la Compliance ("Which Judges for Compliance), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the CR2D of Dauphine University PSL, Raymond Aron Amphy, 23rd September  2021.  - 📅 Read the Colloquium programme 📅 This colloquium  is a part in the colloquia cycle organized in 2021 by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and it partners on the  Compliance Juridictionalisation. - ✏️A bilingual Working Paper  on the topic  "The  role of the Judge in Compliance Law has been prepared to serve a basis for this conference : read this Working Paper  But for the reason detailed below, I preferred to use the time allotted to the introduction of the colloquium to develop rather what should had be an opening element for making it the entire topic of my intervention. : "Never do without judges and lawyers in Compliance Law". Because before analyzing the role of judges, they still need to be in the Compliance system; this seems to us to be taken for granted, but it is not.   ► Conference Summary: Due in particular to the large number of students and the fact that a long time ago when I arrived at Dauphine University I had created a Master in Economic Law with Martine Lombard in which I had included a course of "Economic Procedural Law" that I was teaching, since it was the moment to make this Colloquium "general introductory report", I therefore preferred to go further and focus the subject on something other than "The role of the judge in Compliance Law" , namely the very question of "the presence of judges and lawyers in Compliance Law". This question of their presence or their absence, because they would be useless, even harmful to the Compliance effectiveness, either judges, or lawyers, or both together, is indeed the prerequisite for the reflection of " Which judges for Compliance? " because if we think of Compliance exclusively through the Ex Ante and efficiency, as it is often done in the West through artificial intelligence or in China in a system of surveillance and economic, technological and political efficiency , there is neither judge nor lawyer. It is therefore to this prerequisite that I devoted my speaking time, deferring to publication all the analyzes that I had prepared on "The role of the judge in Compliance Law", to which everyone can refer by consulting the preparatory work. It is indeed imperative to always keep in mind the need to never exclude Judges from Compliance systems, although this can be conceivable since they are Ex Ante mechanisms, which often aim by nature to avoid the trial. (example of the Deffered Prosecution Agreement), because when there is a judge, the procedural mechanisms and Due Process principle are associated with it: the power of Compliance Law does not go wrong. However, Compliance Law is the Law of the future, that which will seize the immense challenges to be resolved today for tomorrow and it is not from the specific laws against corruption, such as FCPA or the French law known as "Sapin 2 law", which are only  examples, but from two enormous "monumental" subjects that are on the one hand Data and on the other hand Climate that Compliance Law is building, with the means that are required. But so that the rule "all the means necessary for the ends", which already tended to govern Regulatory Law of which Compliance Law is the exponential extension, does not carry all, one needs lawyers. Because the lawyers contradict. And ask. Ask judges and carry the actions of ordinary people for their subjective rights to be shaped. As Motulsky affirmed it in its thesis, written during the Second World War, before after this enormous systemic disaster inventing the "general procedural law". - The Working Paper which had not be exploited during the conference will be the bais for the article in the book : 📕 in its French version La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in the Series    Régulations & Compliance  📘  in its English version  Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in the Series    Compliance & Regulation -   📅 Ce colloque s'insère dans le cycle de colloques 2021 organisé par le Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et ses partenaires autour de la Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance.   -  

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rapport de synthèse (Conclusion) in André C., Frison-Roche, M.-A., Malaurie, M. and Petit, B., Les Buts monumentaux de la Compliance (Compliance Monumental Goals), Colloquium co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Laboratoire Dante of Paris-Saclay University, -     📅  September 16, 2021. 🧭 Maison du Barreau, 12 place Dauphine 75004 Paris - ► Conclusions' Summary: Based on the multiple contributions of the day, the first part of this synthesis focuses on the practical interest of having Monumental Goals attached to compliance techniques.Conceptually defining these Monumental Goals as normative legal rules of Compliance Law has the first practical advantage of making clear this scattered and almost incomprehensible material, allowing us to better understand it.  The second practical advantage is to bring together the various branches of law in that they all contain compliance mechanisms, the points of contact thus discerned leading to a unification of technical legal rules.  The third practical advantage is to provide the various sources of law concerned with a means of applying and interpreting the law. The fourth practical advantage is to give meaning to all these technical provisions. In the second part of this synthesis, it appeared that these practical considerations therefore justify undertaking the "conceptual adventure". This one can take three pillars, in this "cathedral" that Dominique de la Garanderie designed, this "monument" corresponding well to the adjective Monumental which is better suited to these Goals than does the adjective "Fundamental", because it is a question of building, of building for a future which is not fatal. The first conceptual pillar consists in conceptualizing the Monumental Goals so that the Compliance Law finding a substantial meaning thus gives in a normative way a meaning to all the technical provisions which serve it in an instrumental way. The second conceptual pillar consists of giving everyone their place, that of public authority, that of the company and that of the population, each concerned and each not having to take the place of the other in the determination of the monumental goals, the company being in particular free in the design of the means while the political authority being in charge of drawing the Goals, the company being able to copy them on its own account. This conception does not depend on legal systems but on goals and legitimacy, in particular on the definition chosen for what is a company. The third conceptual pillar derives precisely from the humanist conception that one can claim to have of the Compliance Monumental Goal, risk management being only a means to achieve it. Humanism effectively carried by Compliance, taken on their own account by the companies alone capable of making them concrete, is what makes it possible to distinguish texts that are nevertheless technically similar, depending on whether they apply in  Rule of Law systems or in systems which are note governed by the Rule of Law Principle. This is why the technical future of Compliance Law lies in this conceptual adventure that it is necessary to lead. -   📝 read the program of this colloquium  🎥 see Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's conclusion in video (in French, with English subtitles) ✏️ read the notes translated in English on which this conclusion is based  - 📅 This colloquium is part of the Cycle of colloquium 2021 organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners around Compliance Monumental Goals.   📘 This manifestation is in French but the interventions will be part of an English collective book directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Compliance Monumental Goals, co-edited by the JoRC and Bruylant. 📕 An equivalent book in French, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, will be co-published by the JoRC and Dalloz. 

 ►Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Conclusion ("Rapport de synthèse"), in Droit et Commerce, La concurrence dans tous ses états, Deauville, 25th and 26th of June 2021. -   📅 This event was initially scheduled for June 22 and 23, 2020, then due to the health crisis, it was postponed to March 27 and 28, 2020; it finally takes place a year later.   📝  Read the general presentation of the colloquium and the program.  (in French)   -  

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., The judge-judged: Articulate words and things face to the difficult conflicts of interest, in L'entreprise instituée Procureur et Juge d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance, colloquium co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lyon 3 Law School, 23rd of June 2021. -   This conference was in French ; the Working Paper on which this conference was based is in French and in English: The judge-judged: Articulate words and things face to the stressful conflicts of interest  📅  June 23, 2021, 9h30 – 18h30  🧭 Lyon,  Lyon 3 Law School, "Salle de la Rotonde" and online -   📊 Read the slides on which this conference is based (in French) 🎥 See the video of this conference.    📝 Read the general program of this colloquium (in French) 📝 Read the working paper on which this conference is based  (in English) - 📅 This colloquium is part of the cycle of colloquia in 2021 organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners about Compliance Juridictionnalization.  📕 📘 The conference is the first basis for the writing of an article, forthcoming in a book whose the French version is La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance,  co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC and Dalloz, and whose the English version Compliance Juridictionnalisation, is co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.     The book in French will be published in the collection "Régulation & Compliance " while the book in English will be published in the same collection "Compliance & Regulation".  - 🔻 Summary of the conference: read below.