Publications

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.

Complete reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Du Droit de la régulation au Droit de la compliance, in Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, Série Régulations, Dalloz, 2017, pp. 1-14. This article was published in the book Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, published in the Régulations.  Series. (Dalloz-Journal of Regulation and Compliance -JoRC) It is based on a working paper, available in French and English. Read the article. Summary: It is a question of showing the movement which starts from Regulation Law, today constituted, to Compliance Law, today in the process of being born. To explain this movement, making it possible to anticipate the near future, in what it should not be and in what it should be, it is necessary to restore how the Compliance Law was born from a Law of Regulation which has thus found the sources of a Law of public services whose roots it had first cut (I). In fact, the Law of Regulation has happily renewed the Law but has also narrowed its perspective. Today, the phenomenon of globalization calls for a need for public authority 1 that States cannot be satisfied by traditional legal methods, even when it is necessary to set up a sort of "global public service". This then takes place through Compliance Law which revolutionizes all legal systems, both Common Law and Civil Law (II). In fact, the Compliance Law internalizes in certain companies, the "crucial operators", the duty to make effective the "monumental goals" that the regulatory authorities have formulated and which these companies must make effective worldwide. In this respect, Compliance Law is an extension of Regulation Law, which is taking on a new dimension both in its aims and in its space. It is the whole of the Law which is transformed. The near future will say whether it results in confrontations, between companies and regulators, between Europe and the United States, or on the contrary by a pact of confidence between crucial operators and Regulators. If this is achieved, the Compliance Law, expressing the political dimension of the Law of regulation, expressing the share of companies ceasing to be neutralized by the mechanics of the markets, will be an advance in Law. It is in this perspective that European Compliance Law must be constructed.    

Through the Open Culture website, it is possible to listen to Hayao Miyazaki who, in March 2017, claimed that video games whose drawings are made on Artificial Intelligence basis are "insults to life". Read below the history, the words that the Master has held, his conception of what is creation and "truly human" work, which is echoed by the definitions given by Alain Supiot, who also reflected on what robots do. This brings us back to the very notion of "creation" and creative work.   - Read below

This working paper is the basis for an article written in French to be published in the French publication RÉGULATION, SUPERVISION, COMPLIANCEE, to be published in the RÉGULATIONS series at Éditions Dalloz. This work uses the Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual Dictionnary. - This Working Paper aims to show the movement that starts from Regulation Law to Compliance Law, now in the process of being born. In order to explain this movement, in order to anticipate the near future, in what it should not be and in what it should be, it is necessary to reconstruct how the Compliance Law was born of the Regulation Law, which has thus found the sources of the Public Services Law of which it had at first cut the roots (I). Indeed Regulation Law has in a happy way renewed the Law but also narrowed its perspective. Today, the phenomenon of globalization and the need for public authority that States can not satisfy according to traditional legal methods implies the establishment of a sort of "global public service". This is done by the Law of Compliance which revolutionizes all legal systems, both Common Law and Civil Law (II). Indeed, Compliance Law internalizes in some companies, the "crucial operators", the duty to make effective the "monumental goals" that the regulatory authorities have formulated and of which these companies must render globally effective. In this respect, the Law of Compliance is the extension of the Law of Regulation, which makes a new scope and in its aims and in its space. It is the whole of Law that is transformed. The near future will tell if it is reflected in clashes, between companies and regulators, between Europe and the United States, or on the contrary by a pact of trust between the crucial operators and the Regulators. If this is achieved, the Law of Compliance, expressing the political dimension of the Law of Regulation, expressing the share of companies that ceases to be neutralized by the mechanics of the markets, will be an advancement of the Law. It is in this perspective that we must build the European Compliance Law.      

Compliance. Trust. Two words that come more and more often than before at our readers' eyes or listeners' ears. And yet they do not seem to match well. They even seem to repel each other. Indeed, Compliance is the way in which Public Authorities trust certain private operators, not in themselves, but with their structural capacities to mechanically capture the information that these authorities need (I). This presupposes a vision of the world in which Companies are powerful and powerful alone but are not virtuous, while Public Authorities, such as the Public Prosecutor's Office or Regulators, are weak but virtuous alone. Such a conception of Compliance transforms companies into automata. Such a vision of the world has no future: only human beings can be trusted, whose fallibility must be accepted, as Compliance is then the expression of a relationship built on trust that is to be seen between non-mechanical operators, namely public Institutions and private Operators, who can both have in common concern for an interest which goes beyond them and which was formerly called the general interest (II). From this reality, no new doubt for private companies, but which explains the strange intimacy between the violent Compliance Law and the new spontaneous order of Corporate Social Responsibility, it is up to them to demonstrate this concern Cf others that it shares with the Public Authorities, except to fall in Compliance reduced to costly procedures, empty endless staked out of sanctions without control. It is thus for Companies to make this branch of Compliance Law emerging become what can be the best, when it is possible that it becomes what would be the worst.

Johann Chapoutot takes the Nazi system seriously. Not only as a machine for the destruction of human beings, as an administrative machine, as a machine producing the fascination of human beings, brought to serve the machine, but as an intellectual machine to be taken seriously. Taking a system seriously is to understand it. This is not admitting it. It is to underline its bone to better identify it, to attach markers, to recognize some traces here and now. Yes, we must take an interest in the Nazi system  (I), to continue to seek to understand Nazi legal system (II), to admit the part that intellectuals took in building a system that revolutionized the intellectual vision of the world by inventing a Nature predominate on everything, even human beings, an intellectual construction in which Law and professors of law had a great place. This allows us to ask ourselves, not without fear, if we are not confronted today with a similar "cultural revolution", the scale of which we do not want to see, which we maybe collaborate (IV).   Read below.