Updated: Feb. 2, 2023 (Initial publication: June 23, 2021)

Thesaurus : Doctrine

 Full Reference: J. Jourdan-Marques, "L’arbitre, juge ex ante de la compliance ?" ("The arbitrator, ex ante judge of compliance?"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliancecoll. "Régulations & Compliance", Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, p. 317-334. 


📕read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published


The summary below describes an article which follows an intervention in the scientific manifestation L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance ("The company instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law"), co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the  Faculty of Law Lyon 3. This colloquium was designed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda, scientific co-directors, and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021.

Due to the very close proximity of the content of this article to a scientific manifestation that was held previously, in the same series of colloquia, manifestation on Compliance and Arbitration, designed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Baptiste Racine, and which took place in Paris on March 31, 2021 in Paris, it was decided with the author and the scientific managers of the scientific events concerned to publish the article not in Title I of the book, devoted to the topic of the Company instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law, but in Title III, devoted to the topic of Compliance and International Arbitration.


 Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance) :  The article begins with a long introduction relating to the general relationship between Compliance and Arbitration.

Then the author in a first part examines the place of the Arbitration upstream of the occurrence of the dispute, aiming at the relations of the company in its organization with other companies for its economic activities, for example commercial agents. The author examines the way in which Arbitration can resolve difficulties which arise between them, including when these issues are otherwise apprehended by Compliance Law and the institutions in charge of it, in particular because of the facts of corruption are alleged and the fact is alleged by the debtor himself when payment has not yet been requested by the creditor. The legal question then becomes whether or not there is a "dispute".

Being even further upstream, the author takes the hypothesis of the adoption of a compliance program in which recourse to arbitration would be inserted by the Company, insertion which could then be at the origin of exemption from criminal liability, an arbitration award being able to produce such an effect if it is recognized in the legal order. 

The second part of the article considers Arbitration in the absence of multiple parties, which could correspond to the acts issued by the Oversight Board of Facebook, this kind of tribunal and judge not being seized by parties to a litigation. It might be adequate to qualify this mechanism as an arbitration, even if this qualification is difficult to retain. In any case, if we did so by admission that a unilateral request gives rise to a jurisdictional mission, there should be guarantees surrounding such institutionalization. They can go through specific bodies for Compliance cases, outside or within existing arbitration institutions, which must then become the driving force in the matter. In addition, the choice of arbitrators should undoubtedly go through the institution itself so that impartiality remains unchallenged and profiles of arbitrators would be truly varied. The procedure would also have vocation to be inflected because of the absence of real litigation, justifying the adjustment of the adversarial principle (in the narrow sense of this one, linked to the debate) in particular by the intervention of amicus curiae and to avoid the fraud through arbitration and in procedure. In the absence of an adversary, the procedural office of the arbitrator could be reconsidered: without modifying the terms of the case, it would be appropriate for the arbitrator to have more power to decide on the adequate measures to be taken to remedy the non- conformity with compliance requirements. Finally, publicity seems to the author essential so that the arbitration is not instrumentalised by the parties, publicity which could also concern the debates and the documents produced. These admittedly very high requirements would in return give great credibility to the resulting award, justifying its scope, and one could consider labeling such a result, a label that the company could claim. 

The author concludes that these transformations would move away so much from Arbitration that it would denature it, in particular because of the absence of litigation, but this allows Companies to outsource the management of the more and more heavier responsibility engendered by Compliance Law, by offering Compagnies the assistance of a judicial authority, as soon as the procedural guarantees are reinforced.


Updated: Jan. 14, 2021 (Initial publication: Dec. 14, 2020)


  Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Economic Attractiveness of Impartiality ("L'attractivité économique de l'impartialité"), in ""Economic Attractiveness, Judge Office and Impartiality. Thinking the judge Office" ("L'attractivité économique, l'office du juge et l'impartialité. Penser l'office du juge"), 



🎥 watch the conference (in French with English subtitles)



📝 read the colloquium program ( in French)

📝 see the general program of the cycle on the Judge Office.



📝 read François Ancel's article of 14th of January 2021 in the Receuil Dalloz and which report this colloquium (in French) 



📝 read the Working Paper, basis of this conference.

This Working Paper is significantly different from the conference because it was conceived befor the colloquia cycle beginning. In addition, since this manifestation was a Round Table, the conference has taken more into account previous conferences and what said the other two speakers.


📊 see the slides, basis of the conference (in French)

The slides could not be shown during the conference. Orally, it was appropriate to more develop the introductory remarks for emphasizing the human and unique dimension of the Judge Office, expected in economic matters. As a result, the second part of the conference was not given orally, so slides therefore remain the only media available.


  Summary of the conference : To fit into the ambition of this general colloquia cycle, which is to "Think the Judge Office" and in this round table which apprehends the imperative of economic attractiveness of this office, firstly emerges the seemingly contradictory relationship between this imperative and the distance that the judge must maintain. Thus it is often asserted that the judge should be internalized at this point in the "places", - an economic concept of great scope (to which the first part of the introduction is devoted, defining the "place" at the same time as a closed and porous space and as a "systemic litigant" -, that he/she should ipso facto lose his/her distance, that is to say his/her impartiality. As places are in competition, even if weighing on one hand the effectiveness of the place, and on the other hand the impartiality of a judge who is external to this place - Judge referring to the Law , Impartiality would necessarily emerge weakened. It would then be necessary on a case-by-case basis to get the judge to give the desired concessions...

The conference aim is to take the opposite position and to state that the Place - in particular because they must be strongly distinguished from the Markets, of which they were the ancestors - require a Judge, who is at the same time "singular", that is to say with a personality, a face, opinions, and in distance so that his/her imagination does not surprise Place. Indeed, these require a human Justice, and a not mechanical one and singular judges, of whom the juge des référés or the arbitrator are the epigone, meets this need. But for reducing their "margins of discretion", how Economy qualifies the Impartiality of a person who can never be neutral, the singular Judge's Office must be inserted into mechanisms reducing these margins. In this way, the Place may reach a Judge who is always more impartial, and in doing so the Place becomes always more attractive.

To achieve this in practice, the place expresses two legitimate expectations, as a "systemic litigant", whose satisfaction increases and the singular Judge's Impartiality and increases the Attractiveness of the Place as a space. This clearly shows that the Place's Attractiveness and the Judge's Impartiality, because judges are inserted into procedures, into institutions and into a "jurisdictional family", are not only not contradictory, but are on the contrary convergent, one fueling the other.

Concretely, and judicial practice shows it, it is necessary to consolidate the particular Judge's Impartiality by inserting him/her into collective processes. As it is necessary to promote a radiance of Impartiality by strengthening the "jurisdictional family".

To consolidate the singular Judge's Impartiality  by inserting him/her into collective processes, it is necessary to admit without hesitation the subjectivity of the judge, to seek it even. The reduction of the margins of discretion, definition of impartiality, being obtained by the inclusion of the judge in a procedure of which he /her alone is the master but in which he/her is not alone. This has the technical consequence that he/her is himself/herself in an adversarial debate, not only during the proceedings, but also before (in the media), inside the judgment (and the decision of the Criminal Chamber of 25 November 2020 is a model of that) and after the judgment. By that, the Judge shows that by his/her office he/she is in the future, as climate justice will show. In addition, to limit his/her margins of discretion, the singular judge must fit into a rational principle of coherence, vertical and horizontal. Vertical coherence, because he/she integrates what it is said and the technique of the "determining opinion" is to be encouraged, the singular judge having to avoid it only if he/she has "strong reasons" to do it. This is to follow  this general rule Comply or Explain (which is the very opposite of blind obedience). Horizontal coherence, because the singular judge either sticks to what he/she said, estoppel also being a rule of logic. But above all, the institution must extract as much as possible from " institutional doctrines", by all means, of which the annual reports are an example.

To consolidate the singular Judge's Impartiality by strengthening the notion and reality of the "Jurisdictional Family", it is necessary to have of it a broader conception, which could lead to "guidelines" common to various jurisdictions, and a stronger one, by integrating those surrounding the judge to lead to judgment. In this, the procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union, working on a common file, is a model. If this community were even stronger, the Judge Office would be even more useful than it is already in the digital space.

Thus, Judges who are always human, always diverse, always singular, who listen, consider and adjust to the situation, who within a Jurisdictional Family fit into an Institutional Doctrine which transcends and supports them but which they transform if there is a strong reason to do so, a reason always expressed said: this is the embodied Impartiality that makes an economic and financial Place attractive.






Nov. 17, 2011


Le cabinet d’avocats Hogan Lovells a étudié avec le Financial Times l’évolution des fusions/acquisitions pour la mise en place des stratégies dans le nouveau paysage de ces opérations. La méthode a consisté à interroger 160 managers ou responsables de M&A. Il ressort de l’étude que d’une façon massive la règlementation (State Regulation) est perçue comme un poids impactant très lourdement le marché des M&A, voire faisant obstacle aux acquisitions. Les managers semblent avoir une vision négative de ces régulations en ce qu’ils les associent à un certain arbitraire des Etats, par exemple à travers le contrôle des concentrations. Plus encore, ils reprochent aux régulations en elles-mêmes leur grande incertitude, soit par leur complexité présente, soit par leur imprévisibilité pour le futur. Cette incertitude pour apprécier la cible devient alors un obstacle définitif pour son acquisition

July 9, 2008

Thesaurus : Doctrine

Référence complète : LEROYER, A.-M., Réforme de la prescription civile. Loi n°2008-561 du 17 juin 2008 portant réforme de la prescription en matière civile (JO 18 avr. 2008, p.9856), RTD Civ. 2008, p.563 et s.