Publications [706]

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., The Principle of Active Systemic Proximity, a corollary of the renewal of the Principle of Sovereignty by Compliance Law, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.

,___

🚧 read the Bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article.

____

► Summary of this Article:  Surprisingly, it is often in a quarrelsome, angry, dissatisfied tone that we first speak of Compliance, especially when Compliance takes a legal form, because it is then we talk about sanctions coming from afar. These sanctions would strike both extremely hard and in an illegitimate way, Law only therefore takes its part in Compliance to increase its brutality: the Law is what would prolong the war between States to better hit this kind of civilian population that would be the companies..., in a new kind of "planetary total war"...

Why so much detestation, which can only be generated by such a presentation?

Because, thanks to the power of Law, Compliance would therefore be the means for a State, finally found, to meddle in the affairs of others to serve its own interests, including those of its companies, to go to war against other States and to the companies they care about without even having to formally declare the war to them. Compliance Law would finally allow a State that is not even a strategist, just smarter, to leave its territory to regulate others. It is true that it seems even more exasperating that it would also be under the guise of virtue and good purposes. Thus, it is not possible to count the number of the writings that describe and comment on the occurrences of the expression "Trojan horse", "economic war", etc. There are thus more articles on this subject of Compliance Law as a means of going to dictate to subjects of law who are nevertheless subject to other legal systems their behavior and to sanction them for having failed to do so, than on all other technical Compliance matters.

As soon as the term "extraterritoriality" is dropped, the knives are drawn. The dejection of defeat... because who can fight against American power, American Law seducing everyone? The call for resistance, or at the very least for "reaction"... In any case, it would be necessary to put the analysis back on its true terrain: politics, conquest, war, so leaving the legal technique there, area which would be good for the naive and above all count the divisions amassed on each side of the borders, then note that only the United States would have had the ingenuity to count many of them, with their armada of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, with Compliance Law amassed like so many gold coins since the 1930s, American companies relaying the assault by internalizing Compliance Law through internal codes, law that is "soft" only in name, and community standards governing the planet according to American principles, the solution then consisting of line up as many of them as possible in reaction, then attempt to "block" the assault. Because if there is no Global Law, Compliance Law would have succeeded in globalizing American Law.

The technique of blocking laws would therefore be the happy outcome on which the forces should concentrate to restore "sovereignty", since Europe had been invaded, by surprise by some famous texts (FCPA) and some cases whose evocation (BNP case) to the French ear sounds like a Waterloo. Compliance Law would therefore only be a morne plaine...

But is this how we should understand the notion of Sovereignty? Has the so-called question of "the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law" not been totally biased by the question, certainly important but with both very precise and extremely specific outlines, of embargoes which have almost not related to Compliance Law?

The first thing to do is therefore to see more clearly in this kind of fight of extraterritoriality, by isolating the question of embargoes from other objects which should not be assessed in the same way (I).

This done, it appears that where Compliance Law is required, it must be effectively indifferent to the territory: because Compliance Law intervenes where the territory, in the very concrete sense of the land in which we are anchor is not present in the situation to be governed, situation to which our minds have so much difficulty adapting and which, however, is now the most common situation: finance, space, digital. If we want the idea of ​​civilization to remain there, that the notion of "limit" be central there. However, Sovereignty is not linked to omnipotence, it is the grandchildren who believe that, it is on the contrary linked to the notion of limits (II).

But if the limit had been naturally given to human beings by the territory, the ground on which we walk and the border on which we stumble and which protects us from aggression, if the limit had been naturally given to human beings by death and the oblivion into which our body and our imagination eventually fall. Indeed, technology erases both natural limits. The Law was the very reflection of these limits, since it was built on the idea of ​​life and death, with this idea that, for example, we could no longer continue to live after our death. Digital technology could challenge this. In the same way, Law had in the same "natural" way reflected the terrestrial borders, since Public International Law being internal Public Law, took care that each sovereign subject remained in its terrestrial borders and did not go beyond, without the agreement of others, Public International Law organizing both the friendly reception of the other, by treaties and diplomacy, as well as unfriendly entry, by the Law of War, while  Private International Law welcomes foreign legal systems if a extraterritorial element is already present in the situation.

The complexity of the rules and the subtlety of the solutions do not modify the solidity of this base, always linking the Law to the material reality of this world which are our bodies, which appear and disappear and our "being" with them, and the earth squared by borders. Borders have always been crossed, International Commercial Law being only an economic and financial translation of this natural taste for travel which does not question the territory, human beings passing from one to another.

But the Global has arrived, not only in its opportunities, being not an issue because one can always give up the best, but also in global risks whose birth, development and result are not mastered and of which it is not relevant to thinking only of repairing the damage, because preventing risks from degenerating into a systemic catastrophe is what is at stake today. What if territory slips away and hubris seizes human beings who claim that technology could be the new wings leading a fortunate few to the sun of immortality? We could go towards a world that is both catastrophic and limitless, two qualifiers that classical philosophers considered identical.

Law being what brings measure, therefore limits in a world which, through technology, promises to some the deliverance of all these "natural" limits, could, by the new branch of Compliance Law, again inserting limits to a world which, without this contribution, would become disproportionate, some being able to dispose of others without any limit: in doing so, Compliance Law would then become an instrument of Sovereignty, in that it could impose limits, not by powerlessness but on the contrary by the force of Law. This explains why Compliance is so expressly linked to the political project of "Digital Sovereignty".

To renew this relationship between Law and Sovereignty, where the State takes a new place, we must think of new principles. A new principle is proposed here: the Principle of "Proximity", which must be inserted into the Ex-Ante and systemic Law that is Compliance Law. Thus inserted, the Principle of Proximity can be defined in a negative way, without resorting to the notion of territory, and in a positive way, to posit as being "close" what is close systemically, in the present and in the future, Compliance Law being a branch of Systemic Law having as its object the Future.

Thus, thinking in terms of Proximity consists of conceiving this notion as a Systemic Principle, which then renews the notion of Sovereignty and founds the action of entities in a position to act: Companies (III).

If we think of proximity not in a territorial way, the territory having a strong political dimension but not a systemic dimension, but if we think of systemic proximity in a concrete way through the direct effects of an object whose situation immediately impacts ours (as in the climatic space, or in the digital space), then the notion of territory is no longer primary, and we can do without it.

If the idea of ​​Humanism should finally have some reality, in the same way that a company donneuse d'ordre ("order giver") has a duty of Compliance regarding who works for it, this again meets the definition of Compliance Law as the protector of human beings who are close because they are internalized in the object consumers take. It is this legal technique that allows the transmission, with the thing sold, of the procedural right of action for contractual liability.

Therefore, a Principle of Active Systemic Proximity justifies the action of companies to intervene, in the same way that public authorities are then legitimate to supervise them in the indifference of the formal legal connection, principe of indifference already functioning in the digital space and in environmental and humanist vigilance.

It is therefore appropriate to no longer be hampered by what is a bad quarrel of the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law (I), to show the consubstantial Indifference to the territory of this new branch of Law (II) and to propose the formulation of a new Principle: the "Principle of Active Systemic Proximity (III).

____ 

► See the general presentation of the book, 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article will be published

____

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

___

Publications

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, série "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.

___

► Article Summary: Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a form of universality.

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, an extremely dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools regarding these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore, Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

____ 

🚧 read the bilingual Working Papier, with more technical developments, references, and links

____

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goal, in which this article is published.

________

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, série "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), to be published.

,___

🚧 read the Bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article.

____

► English Summary of this Article:  Surprisingly, it is often in a quarrelsome, angry, dissatisfied tone that we first speak of Compliance, especially when Compliance takes a legal form, because it is then we talk about sanctions coming from afar. These sanctions would strike both extremely hard and in an illegitimate way, Law only therefore takes its part in Compliance to increase its brutality: the Law is what would prolong the war between States to better hit this kind of civilian population that would be the companies..., in a new kind of "planetary total war"...

Why so much detestation, which can only be generated by such a presentation?

Because, thanks to the power of Law, Compliance would therefore be the means for a State, finally found, to meddle in the affairs of others to serve its own interests, including those of its companies, to go to war against other States and to the companies they care about without even having to formally declare the war to them. Compliance Law would finally allow a State that is not even a strategist, just smarter, to leave its territory to regulate others. It is true that it seems even more exasperating that it would also be under the guise of virtue and good purposes. Thus, it is not possible to count the number of the writings that describe and comment on the occurrences of the expression "Trojan horse", "economic war", etc. There are thus more articles on this subject of Compliance Law as a means of going to dictate to subjects of law who are nevertheless subject to other legal systems their behavior and to sanction them for having failed to do so, than on all other technical Compliance matters.

As soon as the term "extraterritoriality" is dropped, the knives are drawn. The dejection of defeat... because who can fight against American power, American Law seducing everyone? The call for resistance, or at the very least for "reaction"... In any case, it would be necessary to put the analysis back on its true terrain: politics, conquest, war, so leaving the legal technique there, area which would be good for the naive and above all count the divisions amassed on each side of the borders, then note that only the United States would have had the ingenuity to count many of them, with their armada of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, with Compliance Law amassed like so many gold coins since the 1930s, American companies relaying the assault by internalizing Compliance Law through internal codes, law that is "soft" only in name, and community standards governing the planet according to American principles, the solution then consisting of line up as many of them as possible in reaction, then attempt to "block" the assault. Because if there is no Global Law, Compliance Law would have succeeded in globalizing American Law.

The technique of blocking laws would therefore be the happy outcome on which the forces should concentrate to restore "sovereignty", since Europe had been invaded, by surprise by some famous texts (FCPA) and some cases whose evocation (BNP case) to the French ear sounds like a Waterloo. Compliance Law would therefore only be a morne plaine...

But is this how we should understand the notion of Sovereignty? Has the so-called question of "the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law" not been totally biased by the question, certainly important but with both very precise and extremely specific outlines, of embargoes which have almost not related to Compliance Law?

The first thing to do is therefore to see more clearly in this kind of fight of extraterritoriality, by isolating the question of embargoes from other objects which should not be assessed in the same way (I).

This done, it appears that where Compliance Law is required, it must be effectively indifferent to the territory: because Compliance Law intervenes where the territory, in the very concrete sense of the land in which we are anchor is not present in the situation to be governed, situation to which our minds have so much difficulty adapting and which, however, is now the most common situation: finance, space, digital. If we want the idea of ​​civilization to remain there, that the notion of "limit" be central there. However, Sovereignty is not linked to omnipotence, it is the grandchildren who believe that, it is on the contrary linked to the notion of limits (II).

But if the limit had been naturally given to human beings by the territory, the ground on which we walk and the border on which we stumble and which protects us from aggression, if the limit had been naturally given to human beings by death and the oblivion into which our body and our imagination eventually fall. Indeed, technology erases both natural limits. The Law was the very reflection of these limits, since it was built on the idea of ​​life and death, with this idea that, for example, we could no longer continue to live after our death. Digital technology could challenge this. In the same way, Law had in the same "natural" way reflected the terrestrial borders, since Public International Law being internal Public Law, took care that each sovereign subject remained in its terrestrial borders and did not go beyond, without the agreement of others, Public International Law organizing both the friendly reception of the other, by treaties and diplomacy, as well as unfriendly entry, by the Law of War, while  Private International Law welcomes foreign legal systems if a extraterritorial element is already present in the situation.

The complexity of the rules and the subtlety of the solutions do not modify the solidity of this base, always linking the Law to the material reality of this world which are our bodies, which appear and disappear and our "being" with them, and the earth squared by borders. Borders have always been crossed, International Commercial Law being only an economic and financial translation of this natural taste for travel which does not question the territory, human beings passing from one to another.

But the Global has arrived, not only in its opportunities, being not an issue because one can always give up the best, but also in global risks whose birth, development and result are not mastered and of which it is not relevant to thinking only of repairing the damage, because preventing risks from degenerating into a systemic catastrophe is what is at stake today. What if territory slips away and hubris seizes human beings who claim that technology could be the new wings leading a fortunate few to the sun of immortality? We could go towards a world that is both catastrophic and limitless, two qualifiers that classical philosophers considered identical.

Law being what brings measure, therefore limits in a world which, through technology, promises to some the deliverance of all these "natural" limits, could, by the new branch of Compliance Law, again inserting limits to a world which, without this contribution, would become disproportionate, some being able to dispose of others without any limit: in doing so, Compliance Law would then become an instrument of Sovereignty, in that it could impose limits, not by powerlessness but on the contrary by the force of Law. This explains why Compliance is so expressly linked to the political project of "Digital Sovereignty".

To renew this relationship between Law and Sovereignty, where the State takes a new place, we must think of new principles. A new principle is proposed here: the Principle of "Proximity", which must be inserted into the Ex-Ante and systemic Law that is Compliance Law. Thus inserted, the Principle of Proximity can be defined in a negative way, without resorting to the notion of territory, and in a positive way, to posit as being "close" what is close systemically, in the present and in the future, Compliance Law being a branch of Systemic Law having as its object the Future.

Thus, thinking in terms of Proximity consists of conceiving this notion as a Systemic Principle, which then renews the notion of Sovereignty and founds the action of entities in a position to act: Companies (III).

If we think of proximity not in a territorial way, the territory having a strong political dimension but not a systemic dimension, but if we think of systemic proximity in a concrete way through the direct effects of an object whose situation immediately impacts ours (as in the climatic space, or in the digital space), then the notion of territory is no longer primary, and we can do without it.

If the idea of ​​Humanism should finally have some reality, in the same way that a company donneuse d'ordre ("order giver") has a duty of Compliance regarding who works for it, this again meets the definition of Compliance Law as the protector of human beings who are close because they are internalized in the object consumers take. It is this legal technique that allows the transmission, with the thing sold, of the procedural right of action for contractual liability.

Therefore, a Principle of Active Systemic Proximity justifies the action of companies to intervene, in the same way that public authorities are then legitimate to supervise them in the indifference of the formal legal connection, principe of indifference already functioning in the digital space and in environmental and humanist vigilance.

It is therefore appropriate to no longer be hampered by what is a bad quarrel of the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law (I), to show the consubstantial Indifference to the territory of this new branch of Law (II) and to propose the formulation of a new Principle: the "Principle of Active Systemic Proximity (III).

____ 

📕go to the general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published.

___

 read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance

📝 Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance 

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

📝Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance

📝 La dynamique des Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance

________

 

 

________

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, to be published.

___

🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article

____

► Summary of this Article:  Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore, Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

____ 

📘​See the general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals in which this article will be published

____

 read the presentation of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:  

📝 Role and Place of Compagnies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis ;

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

________

Oct. 26, 2022

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Conforter le rôle du Juge et de l'Avocats pour affirmer la Compliance comme bien commun" (Reinforce the Judge and the Attorney to impose Compliance Law as a common good) , in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), La juridictionnalisation de la Complianceseries "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published. 

___

 this article is the introduction of the book.  

____

 English Summary of the article : One can understand that the compliance mechanisms are presented with hostility because they seem designed to keep the judge away, whereas there is no Rule of Law without a judge. Solid arguments present compliance techniques as converging towards the uselessness of the judge (I). Certainly, we come across magistrates, and of all kinds, and powerful ones, but that would be a sign of imperfection: its ex-ante logic has been deployed in all its effectiveness, the judge would no longer be required... And the lawyer would disappear so with him...

This perspective of a world without a judge, without a lawyer and ultimately without Law, where algorithms could organize through multiple processes in Ex Ante the obedience of everyone, the "conformity" of all our behaviors with all the regulatory mass that is applicable to us, supposes that this new branch of Law would be defined as the concentration of processes which gives full effectiveness to all the rules, regardless of their content. But supposing that this engineer's dream is even achievable, it is not possible in a democratic and free world to do without judges and lawyers.

Therefore, it is imperative to recognize their contributions to Compliance Law, related and invaluable contributions (II).

First of all, because a pure Ex Ante never existed and even in the time of the Chinese legists📎!footnote-2689, people were still needed to interpret the regulations because a legal order must always be interpreted Ex Post by who must in any case answer the questions posed by the subjects of law, as soon as the political system admits to attributing to them the right to make claims before the Judge. Secondly the Attorney, whose office, although articulated with the Judge's office, is distinct from the latter, both more restricted and broader since he must appear in all cases where the judicial figure puts himself in square, outside the courts. However, Compliance Law has multiplied this since not only, extending Regulatory Law, it entrusts numerous powers to the administrative authorities, but it also transforms companies into judges, in respect of which the attorneys must deal with.

Even more so, Compliance Law only takes its sense from its Monumental Goals📎!footnote-2690. It is in this that this branch of the Law preserves the freedom of human beings, in the digital space where the techniques of compliance protect them from the power of companies by the way that the Compliance Law forces these companies to use their power to protect people. However, firstly, it is the Judges who, in their diversity📎!footnote-2691, impose as a reference the protection of human beings, either as a limit to the power of compliance tools📎!footnote-2692 or as their very purpose. Secondly, the Attorney, again distinguishing himself from the Judge, if necessary, reminds us that all the parties whose interests are involved must be taken into consideration. In an ever more flexible, soft and dialogical Law, everyone presenting himself as the "advocate" of such and such a monumental goal: the Attorney is legitimate to be the first to occupy this place.

____

🚧lire le document de travail sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développement supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes. 

____ 

📕 Consulter la présentation générale du livre, La Juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, dans lequel cet article est publié.

________

 

Sept. 14, 2022

Publications

 Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Proportionnalité et Conformité (" Proportionality and Compliance"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published.

 This article is based on the Working Paper: Proportionality and Compliance

 It has followed the conference done in the colloquium Compliance et Proportionnalité. Du contrôle de proportionnalité à la proportionnalité du contrôle ("Compliance and Proportionality. From the Controle of Proportionality to the Proportionality of the controle 

___

 

 Article English Summary: The use of Proportionality always limiting powers is only justified when it is about sanctions, but sanctions are only one tool among others in Compliance Law, intended moreover to have little place in this Ex Ante branch of Law. And returning to the very nature of Compliance Law, which relies on operators, private or public, because they are powerful, then using proportionality to limite powers is detrimental to Compliance Law. 

However, nothing requires that. Compliance Law is not an exception that should be limited. On the contrary, it is a branch of Law which carries the greatest principles, aimed at protecting human beings and whose Normativity lies in its "Monumental Goals": detecting and preventing future major systemic crisis (financial, health and climate ones).

However, literally the principle of Proportionality is: "no more powers than necessary, as many powers as necessary".

The second part of the sentence is independent of the first: this must be used.

Politics having fixed these Monumental Goals, the entity, in particular the company, must have, even tacitly, "all the necessary powers" to achieve them. For example, the power of vigilance, the power of audit, the power over third parties. Because they are necessary to fulfill the obligations that these "crucial operators" must perform as they are "in a position" to do so.

So instead of limiting the powers, the Principe of Proportionality comes to support the powers, to legitimize them and to increase them, so that we have a chance that our future is not catastrophic, perhaps better.

In this respect, Compliance Law, in its rich Definition, will itself have enriched the Principle of Proportionality.

____

 

📝 Go to the general presentation of the book in which this article is published in French.

______

 read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: l

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance,

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

 

Sept. 1, 2022

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2022, p.21-44.

___

🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper, with technical developments, references and links, basis of this article

____

► English Summary of this Article:  Compliance Law can be defined as the set of processes requiring companies to show that they comply with all the regulations that apply to them. It is also possible to  define this branch of Law by a normative heart: the "Monumental Goals". These explain the technical new legal solutions, thus made them clearer, accessible and anticipable. This definition is also based on a bet, that of caring for others that human beings can have in common, a universality. 

Through the Monumental Goals, appears a definition of Compliance Law that is new, original, and specific. This new term "Compliance", even in non-English vocabulary, in fact designates a new ambition: that a systemic catastrophe shall not be repeated in the future. This Monumental Goal was designed by History, which gives it a different dimension in the United States and in Europe. But the heart is common in the West, because it is always about detecting and preventing what could produce a future systemic catastrophe, which falls under "negative monumental goals", even to act so that the future is positively different ("positive monumental goals"), the whole being articulated in the notion of "concern for others", the Monumental Goals thus unifying Compliance Law.

In this, they reveal and reinforce the always systemic nature of Compliance Law, as management of systemic risks and extension of Regulation Law, outside of any sector, which makes solutions available for non-sector spaces, in particular digital space. Because wanting to prevent the future (preventing evil from happening; making good happen) is by nature political, Compliance Law by nature concretizes ambitions of a political nature, in particular in its positive monumental goals, notably effective equality between human beings, including geographically distant or future human beings.

The practical consequences of this definition of Compliance Law by Monumental Goals are immense. A contrario, this makes it possible to avoid the excesses of a "conformity law" aimed at the effectiveness of all applicable regulations, a very dangerous perspective. This makes it possible to select effective Compliance Tools with regard to these goals, to grasp the spirit of the material without being locked into its flow of letters. This leads to not dissociating the power required of companies and the permanent supervision that the public authorities must exercise over them.

We can therefore expect a lot from such a definition of Compliance Law by its Monumental Goals. It engenders an alliance between the Political Power, legitimate to enact the Monumental Goals, and the crucial operators, in a position to concretize them and appointed because they are able to do so. It makes it possible to find global legal solutions for global systemic difficulties that are a priori insurmountable, particularly in climate matters and for the effective protection of people in the now digital world in which we live. It expresses values that can unite human beings.

In this, Compliance Law built on Monumental Goals is also a bet. Even if the requirement of "conformity" is articulated with this present conception of what Compliance Law is, this conception based on Monumental Law is based on the human ability to be free, while conformity law supposes more the human ability to obey.

Therefore Compliance Law, defined by the Monumental Goals, is essential for our future, while conformity law is not.

____ 

📕read the general presentation of the book, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, in which this article is published.

____

 read the presentation of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:  

📝 Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance 

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

________

July 31, 2022

Publications

 

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-AFounding Compliance, Working Paper, July 2022.

____

📝This Working Paper has been made as the basis for an article to be published in French in Compliance et Ethique des affaires, Revue de l'ACE.  

____

 Summary of the Working Paper: Les 

____

🔓lire le document de travail ci-dessous⤵️

July 10, 2022

Publications

 

 Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-ARegulatory and Compliance Law, expression of the missions of a professional Order, Working Paper, July 2022.

____

🎤 This Working Paper has been made as basis for an intervention in the Annual Congress of the French Professional Order of the Géomètres-Experts, September 15, 2022 (in French) 

____

🎥watch  the conference (in French)

____

 English Summary of the Working Paper: Professional orders should not present themselves as exceptions, however legitimate they may be, in relation to a principle, which would be the competitive system, but as the expression of a principle. This principle is expressed by two branches of Law whose importance is constantly growing in European Law, liberal branches which are based on the conception of economic life and the definition of company, turned towards the future: the Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, two branches of Law both related and distinct.

Indeed, and this is the topic of the first part, Competition Law conceives professional orders as exceptions since these "corporations" constitute structural agreements. French domestic legal system both consolidates the professional orders by backing them up to the State, which would sub-delegate its powers to them, but involves them in the questioning by the European Union of the States and their tools. Most often the temptation is then to recall with a kind of nostalgia the times when the professional orders were the principle but, except to ask for a restoration, the time would be no more.

A more dynamic approach is possible, in accordance with the more general evolution of Economic Law. Indeed, the Professional Order is the expression of a profession, a little-exploited concept in Economic Law, over which the Order exercises the function of "Second-level Regulator", the public authorities exercising the function of "First-level Regulator". The Banking and Financial Regulatory Law is built in this way and operates thank to that, at national, European, and global level. This is what should be linked.

The Professional Orders therefore have the primary function of spreading a "Culture of Compliance" among the professionals they supervise and beyond them (clients and stakeholders). This culture of Compliance is developed regarding the missions which are concretized by the professionals themselves.

Therefore, the second part of the Working Paper deals with the legal evolution of the notion of "Mission" which has become central in Economic and General Law, through the technique of the mission-based company. However, there are multiple points of contact between the raison d'être, the company with a mission and Compliance Law as soon as the latter is defined by the concrete and overly ambitious goals that it pursues. : the Monumental Goals.

Each structure, for example the French Ordre des Géomètres-Experts, is legitimate to set the Monumental Goal that it pursues and that it inculcates, in particular the conception of territory and the living environment, joining what unites all the Monumental Goals of Compliance: concern for others. The French Ordre des Géomètres-Experts, is adequate because it has a more flexible relationship, both tighter and broader, with the territory than the State itself.

By instilling this in professionals, the Professional Order develops in the practitioner an "ex ante responsibility", which is a pillar of Compliance Law, constituting both a charge and a power that the practitioner exercises, and of which the Professional Order must be the supervisor.

____

🔓read the Working Paper (in French)⤵️

July 8, 2022

Publications

► Full Reference: Tardieu, H., Frison-Roche, M.A., Gouriet, M., Gronlier, P., Compliance, and resulting consequences on the labelling framework of Gaia-X, July 2022.

____

📝 read the article.

________

July 6, 2022

Publications

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'appui du Droit de la Compliance pour la maîtrise quotidienne du Droit de la concurrence, in Mélanges offerts à Laurence Idot, Concurrence et Europe , vol.1, Concurrences, 2022, p. 369-374.

____

► Résumé de l'article : Le Droit de la concurrence est devenu si énorme et « réglementaire » qu’on finirait par renoncer à vouloir le saisir dans son ensemble, préférant devenir spécialiste de l’une de ses parties. Cela serait perdre de vue la raison simple et forte qui unit l’ensemble et lui donne son souffle : la liberté. Liberté éprouvée par la personne dans son action économique quotidienne, liberté gardée par le Droit de la concurrence, revenant toujours à son principe : la libre concurrence. Raison pour laquelle l’Union européenne fait grande place à la concurrence. Pour la rendre et la garder effective, la « politique de la concurrence » s’articule au Droit de la concurrence mais si autorités et juges ne font pas reproche aux entreprises leur puissance, ils ne s’appuient pas sur celle-ci. Pour ce faire, il faut alors être épaulé par le Droit de la Compliance, qui incite fortement les entreprises à agir pour l’effectivité et la promotion des principes concurrentiels. Le Droit de la concurrence glisse ainsi de l’Ex Post vers l’Ex Ante, les engagements des entreprises conduisant celles-ci à cesser d’être passives et punies pour devenir des acteurs convaincus et eux-mêmes pédagogues. De quoi plaire à une grande professeure de Droit de la concurrence, à laquelle hommage est ici rendu. 

____

► Lire la table des matières des Mélanges

____

🚧Lire le document de travail sur la base duquel l'article a été fait. 

____

Les Mélanges ont été remis au dédicataire le 6 juillet 2022.

____

June 21, 2022

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-ACompliance, Artificial Intelligence and Business Management: the right measure, Working Paper, June  2022. 

____

 Summary of the Working Paper: 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 increasingly 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.

________

June 15, 2022

Publications

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Dynamics of 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:  This article constitutes the afterword of the book Compliance Monumental Goals.

Its purpose is to show the consistency of the book, in that the Monumental Goals themselves, by their normativity, give Uniqueness to Compliance Law, giving it simplicity and strength.

Restituting each of the contributions and articulating them all in an overall demonstration, this article highlights this consistency of the Compliance mechanisms which join the primary function of the Law: the protection of human beings, now and in the future.

___

📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goal, in which this article is published.

________

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis

📝 Assessment of Whistleblowing and the duty of Vigilance

____

This article is free access. 

Read the article ⤵️

June 15, 2022

Publications

 Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A.., La dynamique des Buts Monumentaux du Droit de la Compliance (("The Dynamics of the "Compliance Law Monumental Goals"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published.

____

► English Summary of this Article:  This article constitutes the afterword of the book Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance.

Its purpose is to show the consistency of the book, in that the Monumental Goals themselves, by their normativity, give Uniqueness to Compliance Law, giving it simplicity and strength.

Restituting each of the contributions and articulating them all in an overall demonstration, this article highlights this consistency of the Compliance mechanisms which join the primary function of the Law: the protection of human beings, now and in the future.

___

 read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book:

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance

📝 Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance 

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

📝Le principe de proximité systémique active, corolaire du renouvellement du Principe de Souveraineté par le Droit de la Compliance

____

This article is free access. 

Read the article in English⤵️

May 9, 2022

Publications

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Notes prises pour la synthèse sur le vif de la conférence L'office du juge et les causes systémiquesin Cycle de conférences, Penser l'office du juge, Grand Chambre de la Cour de cassation, 9 mai 2022, 17h-19h.

____

► Résumé des notes prises au fur et à mesure de la conférence : les trois juges, Christophe Soulard, Président de la Chambre criminelle de la Cour de cassation, Fabien Raynaud, Conseiller d'Etat, et François Ancel, Président de la Chambre internationale de la Cour d'appel de Paris, invités à réfléchir et réagir à une hypothèse, à savoir l'existence parmi les cas qui leur sont apportés par les parties, sont intervenus à la fois d'une façon très diverse, très originale et exprimant pourtant l'unicité de l'art de juger.

Les notes prises ci-dessous montrent que les juges ont conscience que les temps ont changé et que, de plus en plus, les "systèmes" sont présents dans les causes qui, construites par les parties, leur sont présentées (1). Leurs analyses, réactions et propositions ont montré à ceux qui les écoutaient que pour appréhender des causes systémiques, les juges doivent être expérimentés (2). Ils ont eu souci de fixer des critères pour identifier la nature systémique des causes parmi la multitude de celles qu'ils traitent, justifiant alors un traitement procédural et décisionnaire particulier (3). L'auditoire a ainsi pu mesurer la part qui revient aux parties (4), puisque le système est dans la construction des faits de la cause et la part qui revient à l'office du juge (5).

Il apparaît alors que par un effet de miroir, l'office du juge se déplace de l'Ex Post vers l'Ex Ante (6), les trois juges décrivant et proposant des mécanismes concrets pour appréhender en Ex Ante cette dimension systémique et y répondre (7). Ils soulignent que cela s'opère en collaboration avec les avocats, dans une instruction élargie et le débat contradictoire (8), dans une collaboration qui s'opère en amont (9). Les trois magistrats ont recherché les techniques procédurales pour accroître la plus grande considération des systèmes (10) et les nouvelles organisations à mettre en place pour répondre à cette dimension systémique de certaines causes (11). Pour ce faire, une dialectique est à opérer vers, à la fois, de l'informel mais aussi plus de formel (12), l'ensemble produisant une meilleure réception méthodologique des systèmes par les juges (13) par une plus grande compréhension entre les juges, quel que soit leur niveau et les droits substantiels en cause, les autorités et les parties systémiques (14).

____ 

🎥Voir la vidéo de l'ensemble de la conférence

🎥 Voir la vidéo de la synthèse réalisée sur le vif par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche au terme de la conférence

____

📝Lire l'article de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche rendant compte au Dalloz de la conférence. 

____ 

🚧 lire le document de travail L'hypothèse de la "cause systémiqueréalisé préalablement à la conférence, pour préparer celle-ci.

_____

✏️ lire les notes exhaustives prises pendant la conférence⤵️

May 6, 2022

Publications

 Référence générale : Frison-Roche, M.-ARégulation et Compliance, expression des missions d'un Ordre, document de travail, mai 2022. 

____

🎤 Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base à une intervention dans le 📅 congrès annuel des Experts-Géomètres, Une profession face aux défis de la société, 15 septembre 2022 

 

____

🎥Regarder la conférence prononcée sur la base de ce document de travail

____

 Résumé du document de travail  : sss

📚 pour aller plus loin :

____

🔓lire le document de travail ci-dessous⤵️

April 14, 2022

Publications

 Référence complète :  Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, collection "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Dalloz, à paraître.

____

 lire le document de travail sur lequel cet article est basé

___

 Résumé de l'article : L'on peut définir cette branche du droit comme l'ensemble des procédés obligeant les entreprises à donner à voir qu'elles respectent l'ensemble des réglementations qui s'appliquent à elles. L'on peut aussi définir cette branche par un cœur normatif : les "buts monumentaux". Ceux-ci permettent de rendre compte du droit positif nouveau, rendu ainsi plus clair, accessible et anticipable. Ils reposent sur un pari, celui du souci de l'autre que les êtres humains peuvent avoir en commun, forme d'universalité. 

Par les Buts Monumentaux, apparaît une définition du Droit de la Compliance qui est nouvelle, originale et spécifique.  Ce terme nouveau de "Compliance" désigne en effet une ambition nouvelle : que ne se renouvelle pas à l'avenir une catastrophe systémique. Ce But Monumental a été dessiné par l'Histoire, ce qui lui donne une dimension différente aux États-Unis et en Europe. Mais le cœur est commun en Occident, car il s'agit toujours de détecter et de prévenir ce qui pourrait produire une catastrophe systémique future, ce qui relève de "buts monumentaux négatifs", voire d'agir pour que l'avenir soit différent positivement ("buts monumentaux positifs"), l'ensemble s'articulant dans la notion de "souci d'autrui", les Buts Monumentaux unifiant ainsi le Droit de la Compliance. 

En cela, ils révèlent et renforcent la nature toujours systémique du Droit de la compliance, comme gestion des risques systémiques et prolongement du Droit de la Régulation, en dehors de tout secteur, ce qui rend disponibles des solutions pour les espaces non-sectoriels, notamment l'espace numérique. Parce que vouloir empêcher le futur (faire qu'un mal n'advienne pas ; faire qu'un bien advienne) est par nature politique. Le Droit de la Compliance concrétise par nature des ambitions de nature politique, notamment dans ses buts monumentaux positifs, notamment l'égalité effectif entre les êtres humains, y compris les êtres humains géographiquement lointains ou futurs. 

Les conséquences pratiques de cette définition du Droit de la Compliance par les Buts Monumentaux sont immenses. A contrario, cela permet d'éviter les excès d'un "droit de la conformité" visant à l'effectivité de toutes les réglementations applicables, perspective très dangereuse. Cela permet de sélectionner les outils efficaces au regard de ces buts, de saisir l'esprit de la matière sans être enfermé dans son flot de lettres. Cela conduit à ne pas dissocier la puissance requise des entreprises et la supervision permanente que les autorités publiques doivent exercer sur celles-ci. 

L'on peut donc attendre beaucoup d'une telle définition du Droit de la Compliance par ses Buts Monumentaux. Elle engendre une alliance entre le Politique, légitime à édicter les Buts Monumentaux, et les opérateurs cruciaux, en position de les concrétiser et désignés parce qu'aptes à le faire. Elle permet de dégager des solutions juridiques globales pour des difficultés systémiques globales a priori insurmontables, notamment en matière climatique et pour la protection effective des personnes dans le monde désormais numérique où nous vivons. Elle exprime des valeurs pouvant réunir les êtres humains.

En cela, le Droit de la Compliance construit sur les Buts Monumentaux constitue aussi un pari. Même si l'exigence de "conformité" s'articule avec cette conception d'avance de ce qu'est le Droit de la Compliance, celui-ci repose sur l'aptitude humaine à être libre, alors que la conformité suppose davantage l'aptitude humaine à obéir. 

C'est pourquoi le Droit de la Compliance, défini par les Buts Monumentaux, est essentiel pour notre avenir, alors que le droit de la conformité ne l'est pas.

 

____

📝 lire la présentation générale du livre, Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, dans lequel l'article est publié.

_____

 Lire les présentations des autres contributions de Marie-Anne Frison-Roche dans cet ouvrage : 

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance,

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale

________

 

Updated: April 4, 2022 (Initial publication: Oct. 4, 2021)

Publications

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A.L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques portés devant le juge, document de travail, oct. 2021 et avril 2022.

____

Ce document de travail sert de base à une intervention introductive🎤 L'hypothèse de la catégorie des causes systémiques, dans une conférence plus générale, coordonnée et modérée, 🧱L'office du juge et les causes systémiques, qui fait partie d'un cycle général portant sur Penser l'office du juge, et se tiendra le 9 mai 2022 dans la Grand Chambre de la Cour de cassation.  

Il a été élaboré en octobre 2021 pour construire la conférence à partir de cette hypothèse selon laquelle parmi la diversité des "causes" apportées aux juges par les justiciables, certaines constituent une catégorie spécifique : les "causes systémiques", justifiant un traitement à la fois spécifique (en ce qu'elles sont systémiques, appelant notamment des solutions procédurales communes à toutes et se distinguant du traitement des causes non-systémiques) et un traitement commun au-delà de la diversité des juges qui en connaissent (juges judiciaire et administratif, juge pénal et non-pénal, juge français et non-français, juge de l'ordre juridique internet et juge de l'Union européenne, etc.). Ce thème spécifique des "causes systémiques", l'hypothèse de l'existence de celles-ci, a été enrichi en avril 2022. 

Ce document de travail ne vise pas à traiter l'ensemble du sujet, à savoir à la fois déterminer cette catégorie des "causes systémiques" et les conséquences qu'il faut en tirer sur l'office du juge, puisque c'est l'objet même de la conférence construite sur plusieurs interventions : il vise la première partie du sujet, à savoir l'existence même de cette catégorie processuelle nouvelle qui serait les "causes systémiques", laissant pour d'autres travaux les conséquences pratiques à en tirer dans le traitement processuel qu'elles appellent.

___

📝Ce document de travail sert également de base à un article à paraître.

____

Résumé du document de travail : xx

________

Lire ci-dessous les développements⤵️

March 23, 2022

Publications

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A. et Roda, J.-Ch., Droit de la concurrence, Précis, Dalloz, 2ième éd., Dalloz, 2022, 814 p.

____

► Cette deuxième édition fait suite à la première édition écrite avec Marie-Stéphane Payet.

📝 Lire l'avant-propos écrit en dédicace à Marie-Stéphane.

____

 

📝 Lire la 4ième de couverture de l'ouvrage.

📝 Lire la table des matières de l'ouvrage. 

________

 

 

March 16, 2022

Publications

► Référence générale : Frison-Roche, M.-A., La responsabilité Ex Antein Archives de philosophie du droit, vol.63, La responsabilité, Dalloz, 2022, pp. 155-164.

___

► Résumé de l'article : Le Droit est aujourd'hui placé devant un impératif stratégique : tourner sa force vers le futur, pour faire face à des enjeux (numérique et climat) sur lesquels la loi et le contrat n'ont pas l'emprise requise, puisque trop locale ou trop peu systémique, tandis que la responsabilité ex post n'est pas adéquate face à l'irréparable. La responsabilité se saisit donc de l'avenir, le juge devenant le personnage central du monde sans qu'il l'ait voulu. Ce déplacement dans le temps peut continuer à s'ancrer dans le passé, du fait d'engagements des Etats ou des entreprises. Mais cette responsabilité pour le futur engendrant une obligation non de réparer mais de faire peut venir plus directement encore du seul fait que l'entité visée est "en position" d'agir pour qu'autrui soit préservé. Preuves préconstituées, office ex ante du juge, devoir pour autrui mais aussi pouvoirs de l'entreprise et de l'Etat pour porter cette responsabilité ex ante, pilier du droit de la compliance, droit de l'avenir, sont les nouvelles règles qui se mettent en place. 

____

📝 Lire le document de travail bilingue, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré.

 

____

Updated: Feb. 5, 2022 (Initial publication: Oct. 10, 2021)

Publications


► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Duty of Vigilance, Whistleblowing and International Competitiveness, Working Paper, September 2021.

____

 

🎤 this Working Paper is the basis for a conference , in the colloquium Effectiveness of Compliance and International Competitiveness, co-organised  by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Center for Law and Economics of the Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II),   November 4, 2021

____

📝this Working Paper is also the basis for an article. This article is to be published 

in its French version in the book 📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliancein the series 📚Régulations & Compliance

 in its English version in the book 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, in the series la collection 📚Compliance & Regulation

____

► Working Paper Summary: The "Compliance Tools" are very diverse. If it has been chosen to study more particularly among these the obligation of vigilance and the whistleblower, these rather than others and to study them together, it is because they present in the perspective of the specific topic chosen, namely "international competitiveness", and for companies, and for economic zones considered, and for legal system inseparable from them, a uniqueness: these are mechanisms which release Information. 

By order of the law, the company will not only stop ignoring what it covered with the handkerchief that Tartuffe held out to it or that a conception of Company Law legitimately allowed it to ignore. This article does not examine if this revolution made by Compliance Law expresses in the legal system is on the one hand legitimate and on the other hand effective: the article measures what is happening at the regard to "international competitiveness".

Compliance Law is therefore be examined here through its instruments, and not in relation to its normativity. In fact, its instruments are intended to provide Information and to make this information available, in its presentation, in its intelligibility and in the hands of those who are able to use Information in perspective of the Compliance Monumental Goals, achieving them. 

Regarding this central notion of Information, international competitiveness will be more particularly concerned because Compliance Law will oblige the company itself to seek out, then expose to everyone's eyes, in particular its competitors, its weaknesses, its projects, its alliances, its flaws. This does not pose a problem if its competitors themselves are often subject to this new branch of Law, which goes far beyond transparency, which is already a new mechanism because a company is not a transparent organization and Competition Law that governs ordinary businesses never required this. But if they are not subject to this incredibly special branch of Law that is Compliance Law, then there is a distortion of competitiveness by the very fact of the Law.

It is possible to pretend that the markets like virtue, that they give it credit because they are themselves based on the idea of "promise", which is ultimately based on a moral concept, but this provision of Information to others, while others remain opaque, is a major problem of competitiveness, which the legal requirement of "loyal commercial practices" only very partially considers.

Therefore, it is necessary to first examine what is the economic and financial power of the information captured by the company on itself thank to Compliance Law making available to all but firstly to the compagny itself through the whistblowing mechanism, organised by the laws, differently in the US and Europe (I). Compliance Law also obliges companies to be accountable not only for what they do but also for what others do for them. Through the obligation of Vigilance, objective Ex Ante obligation and duty, the company obtains a power of Information on others which could well resolve what is often presented as the dispute aporetic of the extraterritoriality of Compliance Law, thus making accountable companies hitherto protected by their "preserved" legal system and thereby affected by the effectiveness of Compliance Law (II).

____

read below the developments

Jan. 5, 2022

Publications

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Prévention et gestion du risque climatique par le Droit de la Compliance, janvier 2022.

____

Ce document de travail a été élaboré pour servir de base à une intervention dans le colloque qui s'est tenu sous la direction de M. Torre-Schaub, B. Lormeteau, et A. Stevignon, Les risques climatiques à l’épreuve du droit Comment le droit fait-il face aux nouveaux risques engendrés par la crise climatique ? , à l'Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I), Amphithéâtre Liard, le 17 mars 2022.

Il sert également de base à l'article publié par la suite.

____

► Résumé du document de travail : Cette réflexion particulière a été placée par ceux qui ont conçu la réflexion d'ensemble dans une conception générale qui la place comme une analyse plus particulière de ce qui serait une "insuffisante appréhension des risques climatiques par le Droit". Peut-être que l'on estime au départ que le Droit devrait se saisir de tout et totalement. Face à cette immodestie, l'on ne peut que le regarder sévèrement et trouver son appréhension insuffisante. Mais si on est plus indulgent sur ce que peut l'action humaine et plus raisonnable ce que peut faire le Droit, si l'on pense que le Droit doit à la fois mériter une Majuscule, parce qu'il n'est pas que technique mais aussi prétentions et principes, il doit aussi être modeste dans sa capacité à les rendre effectifs, efficaces et efficients. A ce titre, le Droit de la Compliance, qui ne vise pas tout mais qui justement vise les risques climatiques, prétend obtenir des résultats concrets et immédiats pour que l'avenir ne soit pas sombre. Cela correspond à la définition même du Droit de la Compliance. En cela, le Droit de la Compliance est donc au contraire non pas "insuffisant" mais au contraire particulièrement adéquat sur un sujet comme le Climat. Il a en cette matière déjà obtenu beaucoup, en résolvant beaucoup de difficultés, notamment celles liées au territoire à travers le devoir de vigilance, remarquable notion Ex Ante inventée par le Droit de la Compliance. Tout en ne détruisant pas les principes libéraux de l'Etat de Droit dans lequel nous voulons demeurer. 

 En effet, étant acquis qu'une société où le Droit serait tout et dicterait tout ne ferait plus place à la liberté, que nous ne voulons vivre dans une société où les règles nous enjoigneraient  à chaque instant et partout ce que nous devons faire, c'est au préalable  vers la définition adéquate du Droit de la Compliance qu'il faut se tourner (  c'est dans ce souci-là qu'il faut trouver la bonne place que doit avoir le Droit de la Compliance, place qui tient à la définition qu'il faut donner à celui-ci.  Il apparaît alors que la préservation ou la restauration des équilibres climatiques est un exemple qui va aller grandissant parmi Buts Monumentaux systémiques du Droit de la Compliance (I) qui participent à la définition même de celui-ci. Cela justifie l'alliance entre les Autorités politiques et les "acteurs privés" pour que l'avenir se concrétise dans un équilibre systémique, ici l'équilibre climatique (II), justifiant la mise en place de mécanismes juridiques nouveaux par rapport au Droit traditionnel, par exemple l'alerte, le partage d'information, de puissance et d'obligation, de solutions immédiates et nouvelles conçues pour se saisir de l'avenir, comme la convention judiciaire d'intérêt public et le devoir de vigilance. L'ensemble illustre ce qu'est par nature le Droit de la Compliance : en reflet du But Monumental, ici le Climat, système global, il s'ancre dans les sujets de droit global que sont les entreprises, nouent des informations globales et des actions locales dans un rapport renouvelé au territoire. 

____

► Document de travail : Prévention du risque climatique et construction de l'équilibre climatique par le Droit de la Compliance 

____

► Pour aller plus loin 

👩‍🏫📕Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022

👩‍🏫📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance, 2022,

👩‍🏫🎥 Cas climatique, devoir de vigilance et pouvoirs des juges, 2021

👩‍🏫🚧 Concevoir les pouvoirs, 2022

👩‍🏫🚧 La Responsabilité Ex Ante, 2022

👩‍🏫📓Environnemental Compliance Law, as an Ex Ante Responsability, 2021

👩‍🏫📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise, 2022

👩‍🏫📝 Appréciation du lancement d'alerte et de l'obligation de vigilance au regard de la compétitivité internationale, 2022

👩‍🏫🎥 Devoir de vigilance des entreprises : vers un Droit de la responsabilité Ex Ante, 2021

____

Dec. 24, 2021

Publications

 

► Référence complète : Frison-Roche, M.-A.Le Concevoir le pouvoir, document de travail, décembre 2021

____

📝 ce  document de travail sert de base à un article à paraître dans les Mélanges élaborés en hommage à Emmanuel Gaillard. 

____

► Résumé du document de travail : En 1985, l'œuvre d'Emmanuel Gaillard sortit sous le titre Le pouvoir en droit privé 📎!footnote-2418, mais lors de sa soutenance en 1981, sa thèse dirigée par le Doyen Cornu avait pour titre La notion de pouvoir en droit privé 📎!footnote-2419.

Redonnons pleine force au titre originel du travail de thèse.  

La suppression du terme notion suppose peut-être qu'en définissant quelque chose l'essentiel est fait, qu'il y aurait comme un pléonasme en visant La notion de pouvoir et Le pouvoir, le Droit aimant faire économie de mots.  

Mais c'est bien une conception renouvelée, plus simple et plus puissante de la notion de pouvoir, contenant ainsi tout le régime nécessairement imputé, que cet ouvrage imposa, éclairant désormais le droit positif. Tandis qu'à l'inverse la définition qu'en offrit Emmanuel Gaillard excède le Droit privé. L'on aurait volontiers plaidé pour conserver l'exergue du terme Notion, proposant plutôt de se libérer de la mention du seul droit privé ....

Peut-être était-ce parce que la notion est immense que dans cette recherche fondatrice son emprise fut restreinte au droit privé, l'auteur devant déjà rendre compte de la lourde multiplicité des manifestations dans cette partie-là du Droit ; ou bien était-ce parce que la notion de "pouvoir" étant si familière au Droit public qu'elle aurait eu dans celui-ci moins besoin de définition (d'ailleurs si diversement proposée dans cette zone plus politique, qui veille déjà par principe à distinguer les pouvoirs, ceux-ci devant toujours être pluriels afin d'être séparés), et qu'il était donc raisonnable de vouloir parvenir à une seule notion de pouvoir dans ce Droit privé où le droit subjectif est plus familier. 

Pourtant la définition élaborée par Emmanuel Gaillard de la notion de pouvoir comme ce qui est une prérogative remise, par la loi ou le contrat, entre les mains de celui qui en est investi au bénéfice, au moins partiel, d'autrui, rend compte aussi bien du Droit public que du Droit privé. Cela participe même à la solidité de cette thèse et explique sa prospérité aujourd'hui dans un Droit où la distinction entre le Droit privé et le Droit public s'affaiblit.

La puissance de cette définition tient à sa simplicité. Les esprits simples et braves sont souvent les plus fructueux. Comme le souligne Gérard Cornu dans sa préface, l'auteur, notamment parce qu'il s'appuie davantage sur du droit positif, par exemple celui relatif aux pouvoirs des mandataires sociaux, ne s'abîme pas dans des discussions entre des auteurs pour finir par préférer plutôt l'un que l'autre. Il arrive à une définition proche de celle de notre expérience quotidienne : celle que nous connaissons lorsque nous retirons un pli pour autrui et que le préposé nous demande à quel titre nous prétendons faire cet acte en son nom. Nous lui montrons alors notre "pouvoir", cette puissance juridique de le faire pour le bénéfice de celui auquel est adressé le courrier et pouvons ainsi exercer la puissance de retirer la missive, pourtant personnelle. Quand le sens juridique et le sens commun se rejoignent, c'est de bon augure, non seulement sur la forme parce que chacun peut le comprendre et que le Droit doit rester chose compréhensible mais encore sur le fond parce que chacun doit pouvoir contrôler l'exercice d'un pouvoir qui se concrétise pour et sur autrui. Car cette lettre qui s'adresse à autrui, celui qui a pu la prendre par le pouvoir qui lui en a été conféré, pourrait ainsi aussi bien la décacheter et la lire puis la détruire ou la donner au pire ennemi de celui auquel elle était adressée. Dans le pouvoir, il y a toujours la puissance, et le danger pour autrui que celle-ci contient. 

Cette définition très juridique de ce qu'est le pouvoir met à distance non seulement le titulaire de son propre intérêt mais encore cela canalise la puissance qui lui est ainsi accordée vers celui qui en bénéficie. En cela, non seulement Emmanuel Gaillard distingua le pouvoir et le droit subjectif, mais il cerna le juste volume de puissance requis pour que ce pouvoir remplisse effectivement cette "mission", à travers la notion d'abus de pouvoir, lorsque le titulaire utilise pour d'autres bénéficiaires cette puissance qui ne lui fut conférée que pour cela.

Plus encore, cette conception permet de distinguer le pouvoir de la force discrétionnaire, car le titulaire du pouvoir exerce de ce fait une puissance, en agissant pour autrui, en décidant pour autrui, en décidant sur autrui. Parce que le pouvoir est indissociable de la puissance mais que la puissance doit rester le moyen du pouvoir et pas davantage, le Droit va produire les anticorps que sont non seulement la théorie de l'abus de pouvoir mais encore une responsabilité si forte que des comptes doivent toujours être rendus, soit à cet autrui pour lequel tout est fait soit devant un tiers. Car ce troisième est souvent là et dès le départ, le juge des tutelles par exemple : car le pouvoir fut mis en place en raison de la faiblesse du bénéficiaire, en lui-même et par la situation, il faut donc un tiers, impartial et désintéressé pour, dès le départ, veiller à la bonne exécution, sans même qu'il y ait litige. En cela, comme cette thèse est utile pour penser ce qu'est aujourd'hui la Supervision !  

Cette thèse si nette, si simple et si forte dépasse le droit civil. Elle est à la fois beaucoup plus restrictive que la définition plus factuelle et politique de ce qu'est le pouvoir, qui serait la possibilité de faire quelque chose, et beaucoup plus ample que les définitions usuelles puisqu'elle embrasse et légitime de jure toutes les situations où une personne va agir juridiquement pour le bénéfice d'autrui.  Le Doyen Cornu montre d'ailleurs en deux phrases qu'une telle notion de pouvoir restitue aussi bien l'office du juge, qui n'a de pouvoir sur autrui que pour le servir 📎!footnote-2420. La définition correspond à la mission de celui qui n'a de puissance que pour remplir son office. Cela convient si bien à la conception que nous avons aujourd'hui de l'administration, surtout si elle prend la forme d'autorités indépendantes.

Plus encore le pouvoir contient ainsi dans sa définition même sa propre limite, puisqu'autrui y est présent : le titulaire n'a de puissance que pour servir autrui. Dès lors, ce n'est une puissance que parce que c'est une sorte de charge. Emmanuel Gaillard utilise immédiatement le terme : "Un individu se voit confier une charge qu'il exerce dans un intérêt au moins partiellement distinct du sien propre" 📎!footnote-2422. Il se réfère d'ailleurs souvent au tuteur, dont Carbonnier, qui en réforma le Droit en la matière 📎!footnote-2456, souligna que pèse sur lui une charge publique puisque l'État lui confie un enfant. De la même façon l'autorité parentale est une charge des parents au bénéfice des enfants. D'une façon plus générale, le pouvoir est une charge que le Droit fait peser sur une personne afin qu'elle satisfasse les intérêts d'un autre.

Cette définition offerte par Emmanuel Gaillard en 1981, ancrée dans le Droit civil qu'en ce que celui-ci est le Droit commun des systèmes juridiques, est prémonitoire du Droit de la Régulation et de la Compliance, tel qu'il se déploie aujourd'hui. Il suffirait de continuer les phrases, comme si elles avaient été à demi-écrites, pour les finir 40 ans plus tard et y trouver les mécanismes de Supervision des autorités publiques sur les entreprises qui sont désormais en place non pas pour réduire leur pouvoir mais pour s'assurer en permanence qu'elles l'exercent bien au bénéfice d'autrui 📎!footnote-2457. Toute l'évolution du Droit des sociétés, du Droit financier est là. L'on voit aussi entre les lignes de l'ouvrage qui développe la notion de devoir 📎!footnote-2421, ce que le droit positif élabore aujourd'hui à travers notamment le "devoir de vigilance", cette charge personnelle au bénéfice d'autrui (I).

La définition du pouvoir ainsi conçu contient en elle-même son régime et permet de mieux l'anticiper aujourd'hui : parce que le titulaire n'exerce le pouvoir que pour autrui,  au moins partiellement, il doit consubstantiellement en rendre compte, la responsabilité, n'étant qu'une forme de cette accountability ; parce que ce service doit être effectif et qu'autrui doit en bénéficier pleinement, car contrairement au droit subjectif qui permet au titulaire de librement de ne pas user de sa puissance, le pouvoir n'a jamais été la "plus absolue" disponibilité d'user de sa puissance : il est même l'inverse. Il est l'expression d'une puissance affectée à un but, contraignant le titulaire à utiliser sa puissance à cette fin.  Mais il faut pareillement que ce titulaire ait toute la puissance pour le faire, car sinon la notion même de "pouvoir" n'a plus de sens. C'est la définition qu'il convient de donner au principe de proportionnalité : celui sur lequel pèse le pouvoir doit avoir plus de puissance qu'il n'est nécessaire mais toute la puissance nécessaire pour atteindre le but pour lequel ce pouvoir lui a été remis afin qu'autrui en tire plein bénéfice (II). 

Dans le droit positif d'aujourd'hui, l'on retrouve la définition du pouvoir comme un devoir, non seulement en Droit privé mais encore en Droit public, notamment parce que les puissances pures, c'est-à-dire ne rendant pas compte de l'usage de leur puissance, régressent tandis que le souci d'autrui s'accroît. Le temps des pouvoirs discrétionnaires est révolu, l'indépendance accrue de ceux qui exercent du pouvoir sur autrui exigeant qu'ils rendent des comptes. Au-delà de cette reddition des comptes, la responsabilité personnelle de celui qui a le pouvoir de servir autrui est en train de se mettre en place. Mais, sans doute parce que le Droit est lent à se mouvoir, l'idée corrélative comme quoi le titulaire du pouvoir doit avoir toute la puissance requise pour mener à bien sa mission est quant à elle moins ancrée :  le Droit n'a donc fait qu'une partie du chemin en sanctionnant les excès du pouvoir, comme le montra Emmanuel Gaillard, quand le titulaire utilise sa puissance à d'autres fins,  mais n'a pas encore clairement posé que le titulaire - parfois forcé - d'un pouvoir est légitime à  utiliser tous  les moyens requis pour atteindre le résultat pour lequel un pouvoir, c'est-à-dire une charge et un devoir, lui a été conféré.  

Sans doute faut-il lire une nouvelle fois la thèse d'Emmanuel Gaillard dans toutes ses potentialités, pour en imaginer la lecture que nous pourrions aujourd'hui faire de ce qu'il aurait pu écrire comme sur des pages blanches qui s'écriraient toutes seules, une thèse magique où tout est déjà là, une thèse si courte (250 pages) et si belle, si dense qu'elle contient déjà le Droit qui vient. Droit de l'Avenir 📎!footnote-2458 où il y doit y avoir beaucoup plus de responsabilité au bénéfice d'autrui📎!footnote-2423 et de pouvoirs puisque cette notion inclut autrui qui en est le bénéficiaire. Droit de l'Avenir où Emmanuel Gaillard sera présent, notamment grâce à ce travail de doctrine offert en 1981.  Pour que, concrètement ceux que l'on charge de veiller sur autrui, par exemple aujourd'hui toutes les entreprises contraintes par le Droit de la Compliance de veiller sur autrui afin que celui-ci ne soit pas anéanti par la haine dans l'espace numérique, par la corruption dans le système économique ou par le changement climatique dans un futur projeté, ne se voient pas contester par le même Droit les moyens d'exercer au profit d'autrui ce pouvoir, par exemple lorsque cela implique de "juger". Puisque le doyen Cornu lui-même soulignait l'identité des deux offices.

Lire les développement ci-dessous

Nov. 4, 2021

Publications

► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.A., Assessment of whistleblowing and the obligation of vigilance with regard to international competitiveness, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, series "Compliance & Regulation",  Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) et Bruylant, to be published.

____

🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper, basis for this article 

____

► Article Summary: Taking up the legal tools of Compliance and confronting them with the concern that Law must have for the Competitiveness of companies, it is necessary that these legal instruments not harm it because Compliance Law, because of its immense ambitions, can only function through an alliance between political wills with great pretensions (save the planet) and the entities which are able to achieve these goals (the crucial economic operators : the political drawing on the compagnies" power, it would be contradictory for the legal instruments put in place by Law to harm the ability of companies to face global economic competition, or worse to favor international competitors acting under legal systems which do not integrate Compliance obligations.  

From this principle, it is possible to assess these two legal techniques of whistleblowing and vigilance obligation: both consist in capturing Information, which gives them a strong uniqueness and fits them into the global competition for Information.

Taking the whistleblowing, its first beneficiary is the company itself since the firm discovers a weakness and can therefore remedy it. Therefore, beyond the principle of protection of the whistleblower by their access to the legal statute, for instance the one conceived by the French 2016 law known as "Sapin 2", it is questionable that all the incentives are not put in place so that the holder of such information transmits it to the manager. It is not the European solution, even after the European Directive of 2019, national legal systems continuing to require the absence of financial compensation, the "heroic figure of the whistleblower and the refusal of their remuneration depriving the company of Information and improvement. First to the manager, with external transmission taking place if the latter does nothing, the internal manager is thus encouraged to act and put an end to the dysfunction, which increases the competitiveness of the company.

But the French legislation has on the contrary developed the right incentive as to the person to whom the information is transmitted because by obliging to transmit first to the manager, the external transmission intervening if the internal management does nothing, the incentive is thus made to the internal manager to act and put an end to the dysfunction, this legal solution increasing the competitiveness of the company.

Even more, and even if it seems counter-intuitive, the obligation of vigilance increases the competitiveness of the obliged companies. Indeed, Law by obliging them to prevent and fight against violations of human rights and the environment has tacitly given them all the necessary powers to do so, notably the power to collect Information on third-party companies, including (and even above all) those which are not subject to transparency obligations. In this respect, companies, as far as they are personally responsible, hold supervisory power over others, a power which allows to globalize Compliance Law and which, in the process, increases the Companies' own power. Therefore, 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 of vigilant companies over possibly foreign companies which become its passive subjects.

____

📘​ read the general presentation of the book in which this article is published

____

► read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝Compliance Monumental Goals, beating heart of Compliance Law

📝Definition of Principe of Proportionality and Definition of Compliance Law,

📝 Role and Place of Companies in the Creation and Effectiveness of Compliance Law in Crisis

__________

 

 

Nov. 4, 2021

Publications

► Full Reference: 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 the obligation of vigilance with regard to international competitiveness"), in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Les buts monumentaux de la Compliance, series "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, to be published.

____

 

🚧 read the bilingual Working Paper, basis for this article 

____

► Article Summary: Taking up the legal tools of Compliance and confronting them with the concern that Law must have for the Competitiveness of companies, it is necessary that these legal instruments not harm it because Compliance Law, because of its immense ambitions, can only function through an alliance between political wills with great pretensions (save the planet) and the entities which are able to achieve these goals (the crucial economic operators : the political drawing on the compagnies" power, it would be contradictory for the legal instruments put in place by Law to harm the ability of companies to face global economic competition, or worse to favor international competitors acting under legal systems which do not integrate Compliance obligations.  

From this principle, it is possible to assess these two legal techniques of whistleblowing and vigilance obligation: both consist in capturing Information, which gives them a strong uniqueness and fits them into the global competition for Information.

Taking the whistleblowing, its first beneficiary is the company itself since the firm discovers a weakness and can therefore remedy it. Therefore, beyond the principle of protection of the whistleblower by their access to the legal statute, for instance the one conceived by the French 2016 law known as "Sapin 2", it is questionable that all the incentives are not put in place so that the holder of such information transmits it to the manager. It is not the European solution, even after the European Directive of 2019, national legal systems continuing to require the absence of financial compensation, the "heroic figure of the whistleblower and the refusal of their remuneration depriving the company of Information and improvement. First to the manager, with external transmission taking place if the latter does nothing, the internal manager is thus encouraged to act and put an end to the dysfunction, which increases the competitiveness of the company.

But the French legislation has on the contrary developed the right incentive as to the person to whom the information is transmitted because by obliging to transmit first to the manager, the external transmission intervening if the internal management does nothing, the incentive is thus made to the internal manager to act and put an end to the dysfunction, this legal solution increasing the competitiveness of the company.

Even more, and even if it seems counter-intuitive, the obligation of vigilance increases the competitiveness of the obliged companies. Indeed, Law by obliging them to prevent and fight against violations of human rights and the environment has tacitly given them all the necessary powers to do so, notably the power to collect Information on third-party companies, including (and even above all) those which are not subject to transparency obligations. In this respect, companies, as far as they are personally responsible, hold supervisory power over others, a power which allows to globalize Compliance Law and which, in the process, increases the Companies' own power. Therefore, 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 of vigilant companies over possibly foreign companies which become its passive subjects.

____

► read the general presentation of the book 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliancein which this article is published.

____

 read the presentations of the other Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's contributions in this book: 

📝 Les Buts Monumentaux, cœur battant du Droit de la Compliance,

📝 Définition du Principe de Proportionnalité et Définition du Droit de la Compliance 

📝 Rôle et place des entreprises dans la création et l'effectivité du Droit de la Compliance en cas de crise 

_________

 

__________