Publications

This working paper serves as a support for the article to be published in the book written in French, Ingall-Montagnier, Ph., Marin, J.-Cl., Roda, J.-Ch. (dir.), Compliance : l'entreprise,le régulateur et le juges, in the Serie Regulations, co-edited by Éditions Dalloz and the Journal of Regulation and Compliance (JoRC). This work uses by links the Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary. - Summary. We have to admit it. Because in front of so numerous and so disparate Compliance rules we pain so much to figure out, we are constraint to go in so changing directions, that we console ourselves with their weight, their cost and our misunderstanding by affirming that Compliance is "complex" and "transdisciplinary", as if complicated words could mask our disarray. But "Compliance" is not a cataclysm, a bomb sent by the Americans to annihilate Europe, the new form of a Cold War in legal dress, it is a way of seeing things that comes from afar, with its own coherence and which must first be understood. If one understands where this new corpus comes from, which now obliges companies to prove that they effectively take on the fulfillment of certain goals that go beyond them, notably the fight against money laundering, tax evasion, but also the fight against the sale of human beings or the struggle for the preservation of nature and Earth, then we can continue the story. Indeed, not all companies are targeted by such internalization of "monumental goals" within them." An ordinary firm is destined to develop itself in order to achieve a goal which is its own. The concern of these goals can only be for the "crucial firm. "If there is to be a change in the corporate project, then it can only depend on its" position "in a system, a financial, economic, social, global system, or because it has itself decided that it would be so. The company then bears the burden of proof that such a discourse of new responsibility corresponds to a behavior and an effective culture. The weight of the rules already exists today. And it is for the moment that now, in a negative and passive way, Compliance is perceived, by those who "undergo" it (companies), even by those who apply it (public authorities). The transformation towards a "culture of trust" is the issue between today and tomorrow, because tomorrow, it is a relationship of trust that could be built between these companies and the public authorities, because they would share information (systemic issue), because they would agree on the less technical monumental goals (protection of human beings issue). In this perspective, "Compliance" is above all a bet, that of the place of human beings in globalized markets.

This working paper serves as a support for an article published in French in the Recueil Dalloz. In Lisbon, in the Web Summit of November 2017, a machine covered with a skin-like material and a sound-producing device gave a speech in public at this conference on digital. For example, a French article tells the event by this title : Le premier robot citoyen donne sa propre conférence au web summit  (The first citizen robot gives his own conference to the web summit). Some time later, reports show the same robot walking and taking more than 60 facial expressions, the text laudatif that accompanies the images designating the automaton by the article: she.¹It is true that in 1966, the BBC already presented a sort of robot being the "ideal" servant and designating it by the article "she".. The machine, which falls legally within the category of "things", is thus presented as a person. Let's look elsewhere. Women, who are human beings, sign contracts by which they agree to give birth to children, with whom they claim they have no connection, that they are not mothers, that they will hand them over immediately at the exit of their belly to those who desired their coming, this desire for parenthood creating by hitself the true and only link between the child and his "parents of intent". The mother-carrier is often openly referred to as "oven". The woman, who falls legally within the category of the "person", is thus presented as a thing. The two sensational phenomena are of the same nature. They call two questions: 1.Why? The answer is: money. Because both are the result of the new construction of two fabulous markets by supply. 2.How? The answer is: by the destruction of the distinction between the person and things. The distinction between person and things is not natural, it is legal. It is the base of the western legal systems, their summa divisio. If this distinction disappears, and for money to flow, it must actually disappear, then the weak human being will become the thing of the strong one. Read below the developments.

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La mondialisation du point de vue du Droit" (Globalisation from a legal perspective), in Association Henri Capitant,  La mondialisation, t. LXVI/2016, Berlin, Bruylant, coll. "Travaux de l'Association Henri Capitant",   2017, pp. 11-30 - 📝read the  article (in French)  - 📗read the general presentation of the book, La mondialisation, in which this contribution for the book's synthesis and conclusion is published - 🚧lire le document de travail bilingue sur la base duquel cet article a été élaboré, doté de développements supplémentaires, de références techniques et de liens hypertextes - ► English summary of this article: Globalisation is a confusing phenomenon for lawyers. The first thing to do is to take the measure of it. Once this has been done, it is essential to allow oneself to think something about it, or even to force oneself to think something about it. For example, on the novelty or otherwise of the phenomenon, which then enables us to assess what is being put in place. If Law can and must "pretend" to defend every human being, a universal ambition that is intended to confront the global field of forces, then the next – but secondary – question is: quid facere? Nothing? Less than nothing? Or regulate? Or do we still affirm that the Law fulfills its primary function, which is to protect the weak, even in the power struggle that is Globalisation? - 📝read the summary and conclusive report of the symposium organised by the Association Henri Capitant, as part of the Journées internationales Allemande about La Mondialisation in Berlin, the 27 May 2016. - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

This working document served as a basis for a lecture given in French at the Académie des Sciences morales et politiques  (French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences) on September 25, 2017, in the cycle of conferences conducted under the presidency of Michel Pébereau,  Quelles réformes ? (What reforms?) Consult the presentation (in French) of the conference cycle (2017). It served as the basis for the publication of an article published  in French in 2018 in the book directed by Michel Pébereau Réformes et transformations (Reforms and transformations).

This working paper is the support for the article to appear in the collective book  dedicated to our very dear friend and colleague Philippe Néau-Leduc. It uses the Bilingual Dictionary of the Regulatory and Compliance Law. Compliance Law has the same teleological functioning as the Economic Law to which it belongs, which consists in placing the normativity of rules, decisions and reasoning in the aims pursued. Once we know what the goals of compliance techniques are, then we know who should be responsible for them, who must be subject to them, who must activate the rules: compliance rules must be activated by those who are in the best position to achieve the outcome in order to achieve the goal sought by the authority which designed the compliance mechanism. The "circles" are thus plotted in a rational and pragmatic way. That, all of it ("useful effect"), but not beyond that. The notion of efficiency does not always imply balancing: on the contrary, it can involve drawing circles which designate those who are "placed" to carry the burden of the rules because they are capable of producing them the desired effects. Within these circles, the rules must apply without restriction and without compromise, but they must not apply beyond these circles. Drawing such circles requires defining the Law of Compliance itself, since on the one hand the choice of those who must implement the Compliance depends on the aims of the Compliance and on the other hand the definition of the Law of Compliance is itself teleological in nature. This is why, contrary to the assertion that the exercise of definition would be useless in these matters, which would be above all on a case-by-case basis, this effort to define and determine the purposes is, on the contrary, necessary in practice to show which enterprise must bear the obligations of compliance and which must not. But it is enough to have posed this to reveal the major difficulty of the Compliance, that explains resistances, and even gives the impression that one is confronted with an aporia. If, as a matter of principle, what is expected of the "users" of the Compliance mechanisms must be articulated to the aim that is affected by the authors of the compliance mechanisms to them, we must have a minimum correspondence between the aims of these authors (Legislators and Regulators) and the aims pursued by those who are responsible for implementing them: companies. However, this correspondence does not exist at first sight, because the compliance mechanisms are found to be uniquely based on "monumental goals" which the public authorities have a legitimate concern, whereas companies have for their own interest . The two circles do not match. The internationalization of concern for these aims in companies would therefore be only a mechanism of violence of which enterprises are the object, violence felt as such. (I). To resolve this violence, it is better to stop confusing the State and enterprises, whose goals are not the same, and draw the circle of subjects of law "eligible" for Compliance. It is highly legitimate to target certain entities, in particular this category of companies, which are the "crucial operators", in a binding way, as it is legitimate to govern companies that have expressed a desire to surpass their own interests. These circles of a different nature can overlap on a concrete operator: for example, if a bank – alway a crucial operator that is structural because it is systemic – is also international – a crucial operator because of its activity – decides to worry about others by commitments verified by the authorities to overcome their own interest (social responsibility), but these different circles are not confused. In any case, companies may belong to only one circle, or even belong to none. In the latter case, they must therefore remain beyond the reach of the pressure and cost of Compliance Law, in particular because they are not objectively required to realize the "monumental goals" aimed at effectiveness and do not want it: in a liberal system, it is for the public authorities to aim at the general interest, the ordinary people indirectly participating in it by paying the tax. (II). It is by making these "Compliance Circles" of eligible subjects of this specific Law to implement the heavy but justified and controlled burden of Compliance with regard to the monumental goals that this new system  aims, that then opens a royal way in order to find a uniqueness and to increase the "monumental function" of the Compliance Law by a relation of Trust towards the global general interest, rather than the mechanical application of rules whose meaning is not understood and whose perception is no longer perceived than violence.