Compliance Law

► Full reference: Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I), Institut de Recherche juridique de la Sorbonne -IRJS (Sorbonne Legal Research Institute), Compliance et droit commun des contrats (Compliance and General Contract Law), 7 October 2026. - 🏗️ This symposium is part of the series of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partner universities, focusing in 2026 on the general theme of Compliance and Contract. - The symposium is under the scientific responsibility of Nicolas Bargue, 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and 🕴️Julia Heinich. - To register: - 🧮The event will take place at Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I) on 15 October 2026. Il will be held in French. - Presentation of the topic:  While Contract Law, in its common rules expressed by the “general theory of contracts”, is often considered to be the most developed branch of Law in practice and the most studied at university, at first glance it seems to be given little consideration when it comes to compliance matter. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the company, which is at the heart of the action expected of it—action that is expected to be powerful (since it affects the collective future) and diversified (since it concerns all systems beyond the company’s direct activity)—seems above all to have the status of a subject of law. This is exacerbated if, by mistakenly confusing the latter terms, we only talk about “conformity” and assert that it is simply for businesses a matter of “complying with the regulations that apply to them”, which then leaves little room for contractual initiative. This would be associated only with Ethics, a normative order that also differs from a contract, which is a binding legal act. The relationship between Contract and many sorts of documents, standards and ethical acts that are so numerous in compliance techniques, to which we can add the soft law produced by courts, regulators, supervisors and the companies themselves, is therefore an open question. This delicate reconciliation, which the terms “CSR” and “Governance” express without referring to very precise legal definitions, can cause difficulties in relation to general Contract Law: thus, the “commitments” that punctuate the techniques and behaviours that make up the “culture of compliance” have a central place in Compliance Law. However, their place, if not their equivalence with the contract, is not established, and may even be excluded. This too is an open question. Based on these initial questions, it appears that in order to gain a firmer footing in the analysis of the practices of companies that include compliance clauses into multiple contracts, we must observe that compliance may consist of a comprehensive service that is the very subject of a specific contract, the “compliance contract, or even assist in the conception that judges may, or must, develop in their office when they are seized of “contractual litigation involving Compliance”, we must return to common contract law. Indeed, if we stop viewing Compliance Law solely through the prism of punishment, if we do not limit it to the “detection and prevention” of fraudulent behaviour which, if it occurred, would be punished, the contract does not have the same place in practice. In this initial restrictive conception of Compliance Law based on sanctions, simply by moving from ex post to ex ante, the company remains subject to the regulations that apply to it, and the contract would be just one of the ways in which it fulfils its legal compliance obligation. However, the obligation of compliance can also be considered to have its legitimate source in the Contract, which in general termes is based on the autonomy of will and all its consequences (contractual freedom, binding force, effect on third parties, etc.), with the Principle of Compliance fitting into it as a second pillar linked to the first pillar, which is the Principle of free Competition. It is therefore very useful to better understand practices by comparing the technical principles of general Contract Law with Compliance Principles, such as concern for others that contractors may pursue independently of any regulatory requirement (these others who are distant in space and time), preservation of systems, the obligation to provide evidence, etc. This is the subject of this symposium which, according to the classic dichotomy of contractual formation and contractual execution, revisits the contractual thread based on the founding principles of autonomy and freedoms, binding force and its relativity, the meeting of consents, groups of contracts, and regulatory contracts often drawn up to implement compliance policies. Enforcement and contractual liability under general Contract Law are themselves coloured in a unique way when a compliance concern or goal has been included in the contract or is implied by it. - The proceedings of this symposium will form the basis of a specific chapter in the following publications: 📕Compliance and Contracts, forthcoming in the series 📚Regulations & Compliance, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz. 📘Compliance and Contract, to be published in the 📚Compliance & Regulation Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.   🔻 Read the schedule for the event below ⤵️  

▶ click on the image to watch the episode on YouTube - ► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “The Mystery of the Monumental Goals”, in series of drawn videos Compliance in Motion, episode 2, 2 October 2026 - ► Summary of this episode of Compliance in Motion: Students sit around a table; on the table, two books. Three words are given to them — Compliance Monumental Goals — and nobody really sees what that means. The Compliance Ogre, of course, is certain: “Me, me, me! I know what the Monumental Goals are!” And yet, it is no riddle. A Monumental Goal is an edifice: protecting the climate, stopping corruption, respecting others. Compliance Law does not merely forbid, it aims; and because the goal is monumental, no one builds it alone — the judge, the lawyer, the company, the teacher, each brings a stone. That is where Compliance Law draws its normativity, and that is what separates it from mere conformity. They are not decreed. They are built. At the end, the Ogre: “Yes, yes, yes — I said so!” He had not said so. Less than a minute, not a word spoken. One episode every two weeks, in French and in English. - 🌐 watch this episode of the series on YouTube: Compliance in Motion 🎬 watch this episode of the series below Compliance in Motion ⬇️ - Compliance in Motion, by mafr the series of drawn videos devoted to Compliance Law ComplianceTech® - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The Legal System of Internet Addressing. A Multi-Stakeholder Structure, the Pledge of its Sustainability, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Bruylant, “Compliance & Regulation” series, forthcoming. - 📕 This book is published in English. It is also published in French, in the “Régulations & Compliance” series: Le système juridique de l’adressage de l’Internet. Une structure multi-acteurs, gage de durabilité (The Legal System of Internet Addressing. A Multi-Stakeholder Structure, the Pledge of its Sustainability), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, forthcoming. - ► Read the presentations of the other books in the “Compliance & Regulation” series - ► General presentation of the book: The Internet is a space based on a technical system consisting of IP addresses, all of which can reach one another. This simple technical principle is essential because it is the foundation on which the digital space rests, in that it allows anyone to enter it, move within it and reach others. It is this principle of the open Internet that made possible the construction of the digital space in which we live. This technical system of IP addresses was made easily manageable by domain names. This manageability of IP addresses made the open character of the Internet effective and enabled the expansion of a space that was global from the outset, forming the basis of the digital space. These technical elements were directly translated into the addressing system through domain names, which was built by the Law. The resulting legal system of addressing reflects this technical foundation, and no one can either deny or undo this link: indeed, the Law enables the domain name infrastructure to function effectively on a global scale and in an open manner, where everyone can reach the other. Technical architecture and legal architecture are thus inseparable. This freedom for everyone to create and circulate in the digital space is made possible by technology and guaranteed by the legal organisation of the domain name architecture. This study is structured in two parts. Its first part aims to describe the legal framework of the global domain name system. Its second part examines how to improve this system: it first examines the technical effects produced by scenarios involving changes to the legal framework of addressing, namely a high risk of capture and/or fragmentation of the domain name system by regional zone. It then aims to demonstrate that if the legal organisation of the global domain name system were significantly altered, notably through the establishment of legal addressing zones that are autonomous from one another, the technical imperative of globality remaining paramount, interconnection between the different zones would be necessary and would then be ensured by a public or private actor who could thus effectively seize control of the technical system via these proposed new legal structures of the system, thereby taking over the whole. - PROVISIONAL TABLE OF CONTENTS   In Perspective   PART ONE HOW THE GLOBAL LEGAL SYSTEM OF NAMING IS BUILT   CHAPTER I: ICANN: A LEGAL STRUCTURE OF CLASSIC HARD-LAW FORM, REQUIRED BY THE TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE ADDRESSING SYSTEM, TRANSPOSED THROUGH STATUTES THAT SEPARATE THE POWER TO PROPOSE FROM THE POWER TO ADOPT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A “MULTI-STAKEHOLDER” SYSTEM WHOSE PURPOSE AND EFFECT ARE TO PREVENT CAPTURE CHAPTER II: THE EXERCISE BY STATES OF THEIR PREROGATIVES THROUGH NATIONAL PUBLIC LAWS: ARTICULATION BETWEEN THE TWO GEOGRAPHICAL SPACES OF HARD LAW CHAPTER III: INTERNATIONAL SPACES OF HARD AND SOFT LAW: UN, WIPO, ITU, WSIS CHAPTER IV: MIRRORING THE TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE ADDRESSING SYSTEM, THE INTERMESHED GLOBAL LEGAL STRUCTURE, ARTICULATING THE SPACE OF HARD LAW AND THE SPACE OF SOFT LAW CHAPTER V: INTERNALISATION WITHIN CRUCIAL OPERATORS THROUGH COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES LINKED TO THE OBLIGATION OF SUSTAINABILITY   PART TWO HOW TO IMPROVE THE GLOBAL LEGAL SYSTEM OF NAMING   CHAPTER I: ASSESSMENT OF THE RADICAL TECHNICAL TRANSFORMATIONS THAT PROPOSALS TO CHANGE THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF ADDRESSING COULD BRING ABOUT Section 1 ♦️ Assessment of the technical consequences of the legal proposal to transfer the current complex and specific system into an ordinary mechanism of Public International Law Section 2 ♦️ Assessment of the technical consequences of the indirect proposal to establish separate blocks of systems by zone CHAPTER II: MAINTAINING THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF ADDRESSING, GLOBAL, PROTECTED FROM CAPTURE AND ABLE TO ENSURE TECHNICAL SUSTAINABILITY? BY FOSTERING AN INCREMENTAL PROCEDURAL IMPROVEMENT TOWARDS BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND THUS BETTER ACCOUNTABILITY Section 1 ♦️ A grievance, factual but central: the legal system of domain names is hard to understand. Causes and consequences Section 2 ♦️ Making the legal system of domain names more easily understandable to the parties concerned Ex Ante Section 3 ♦️ Explaining clearly, starting from the purposes, the share of technical sustainability and the share of societal sustainability, the former firmly preserved, the latter handled as a debated project Section 4 ♦️ Enhancing soft-law instruments for their discursive, that is explanatory, scope regarding the domain name system within the global governance of the Internet Section 5 ♦️ Making the legal system of domain names understandable to the parties concerned Ex Post: thereby increasing the value of accountability   Selected Bibliographical Sources Index - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

▶ click on the image to watch the episode on YouTube - ► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Leaving Conformity Behind”, in series of drawn videos Compliance in Motion, episode 1, 25 September 2026 - ► Summary of this episode of Compliance in Motion: Less than a minute, not a word spoken. A man is buried under files: he complies, with every regulation, every one of them. Then the machine takes his place and does better than he can — it files, it drafts, it will write the contracts, the judgments, the law. Above him stands the Compliance Ogre, who knows only one sentence: “Obey, or I will punish you!” If conformity were the goal of Compliance Law, the matter would be settled: the algorithm would achieve it better than we can. But that is not the goal. Compliance Law was invented to preserve the systems in which human beings live. Its Monumental Goals are its legal foundation; it is through them that it is distinguished from conformity, which is only its instrument. Leaving conformity behind is therefore not leaving Law behind: it is entering it. One episode every two weeks, in French and in English. The series also has its Instagram account: mafr.compliancetech. - 🌐 watch this episode of the series on YouTube: Compliance in Motion 🌐 watch this episode of the series on LinkedIn: Compliance in Motion 🎬 watch this episode of the series below Compliance in Motion ⬇️ - Compliance in Motion, by mafr the series of drawn videos devoted to Compliance Law ComplianceTech® - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, “Considérer la géographie juridique africaine pour y réussir l'obligation de vigilance" (Taking into account the legal landscape in Africa to fulfil the Vigilance Obligation), in E. Da Allada (ed.), Devoir de vigilance, quelles perspectives africaines ? (The Vigilance Duty: what African perspectives?), Lefebvre-Dalloz, “Thèmes et Commentaires” series, 2026, pp. 235-235. - 📝Read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual working document on which this article is based - 🎤read the presentation of the conference  which summarised this topic - ► Summary of the article: The French ‘Vigilance’ Act of 2017 incorporated the technical provisions and the spirit of the ‘Sapin 2’ Act of 2016. They share a common ambition. They have been, and remain, a source of both controversy and fervour. At their heart lies the establishment of a “compliance obligation”, for which vigilance techniques form the “vanguard” in serving a grand ambition: to protect systems from present and future risks in order to safeguard the people involved in them. The passion that continues to surround the Vigilance Act – which gave rise to the CS3D Directive – is not a good thing, because the law and passion are never allies. Some are passionately committed to the triumph of vigilance by forcing companies to perform miracles, whilst others are passionately committed to the destruction of all the legislation that has established the very concept of this compliance law, built upon these monumental humanist goals. But let us recognise that in these debates on the Duty of Care, which is being legally implemented across value chains,  Africa is often cited as an example in a general discussion. It is not often considered as a distinct case in its own right. No account is taken of its strengths or its own legal mechanisms, even though value chains – particularly industrial ones – so often lead to it, both now and in the future. Through analyses of the duty of care, Africa is perceived as a place of retribution or of a new form of paternalism, and when its future is considered, prospects seem to be lacking, even though the very purpose of compliance – and therefore of due diligence – is the future.  If we take a less confrontational view and focus more on the ‘legal geography’ of African countries and their social and inter-state structures  social and inter-state structures, we can see that concern for others – both present and future – which ultimately constitutes the Monumental Aim of Compliance Law and thus of the Duty of Vigilance – is more prevalent in Africa than it is in Europe, which is now built upon legal individualism. This concern for others is reflected in legal mechanisms akin to mediation and various legal structures that our own institutions would do well to take on board – our legislators before adopting legislation, and our judges, who could listen to them as amici curiae before always reaching a decision. If we turn our attention to the African continent, where a segment of the value chains operates, and to the way work is organised, it becomes clear that here too, legislation and sanctions are not the whole story. Compliance techniques that make use of soft law and the contractual arrangements underpinning the chains themselves can remove the element of abstraction that is, by its very nature, inherent in general legislation. Making progress through contracts, under the scrutiny and with the support of the courts, is an approach that could prove more fruitful than well-intentioned legislation – which served as a catalyst – given the prominent role of Contract Law within OHADA. This serves to enhance the judge’s importance. The judicialisation of compliance is also linked to the growing connection between compliance and contracts. However, it appears that not only can European judges specialising in due diligence thus rule on matters concerning Africa – a continent they can only know from a distance (though it is the lot of every judge to be an outsider) – but African and inter-state courts, notably through OHADA, can address the duty of care because value chains are constituted by contracts. By developing it not as a foreign concept to be assimilated, but as something that expresses the very heart of the law in Africa: concern for others, solidarity, and the search for compromises and solutions to ensure that the social and environmental – that is to say, human – system continues to thrive tomorrow. - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art Newsletter

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La part du gracieux dans le traitement juridictionnel de la compliance (The role of Discretionary Jurisdictio in the judicial treatment of Compliance cases)", in Mélanges Dominique d'Ambra, Liber Amicorum, Lefebvre-Dalloz, 2026, pp. 175-196. - 📝read this article (in French)  - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper, base of this article - ► English summary of this article: Based on the definition of Judicial Office, the procedural principles that derive from it and the consequent powers that judges exercise, the objet of this study is to measure the degree of discretion that exists in the judicial treatment of compliance, without direct consideration for the dispute between litigants. This part is very ignored, when it should be given top priority. Indeed, because Systems are involved in compliance cases brought before civil or commercial judges, we are seeing a development of this discretionary element in judicial fonction. Discretionary matters differ from unilateral discretionary procedures, and this discretionary element relates to what the judge examines, possibly in the context of a dispute. The first part of this contribution therefore aims to describe the natural development of the discretionary power of the judge to deal with compliance cases brought before them. This role stems from the fact that, even when triggered by a dispute, what is submitted to the judge is a situation composed of a system, which cannot defend its interests before the civil or commercial judge in this Systemic Litigation arising from the very nature of Compliance Law and the Compliance Obligations it engenders on systemic entites. Moreover, it is the Future whose interests must be considered and protected, which the judge must do directly. This leads to the second part of the contribution, calling for a rethinking of the procedure and the role of the Compliance Judge, so that ex gratia matters can be dealt with. The judge must therefore verify that there are no conflicts of interest between the litigants, including hidden ones, and must learn about the systems involved. The inquisitorial principle must therefore be strengthened. But at the same time, since the primary aim is not to settle a dispute but to resolve a systemic problematic situation, the judge must facilitate the movements of the parties, and the adversarial principle must also be strengthened. Must be encouraged this activation of a powerful and discretionary approach, not as an exception but as a principle fully articulated with a contentious principle, with the dispute being only a means used by the necessary parties to enable systemic compliance situations to be resolved. - 🌐 follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La définition juridique du Contrat de compliance (The legal definition of the compliance contract)", in Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) published by the Centre for Research on Justice and Conflict Resolution (CRJ) and the Centre for Research in Economics and Law (CRED) at Panthéon-Assas University (Paris II), Le "Contrat de compliance" (The "Compliance Contract"),  Paris II Lecture Theatre –  82 Rue Notre Dame des Champs, Paris, 12 June  2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event - 📶view the slides (in French) - 🌐read the presentation made on LinkedIn - 🚧Read the bilingual working paper on which this conference is based   - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to the book, 📕Compliance et Contrat (Compliance and Contracts),  To be published in the 📚Regulations & Compliance series, a book co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz. - ► Overview of this lecture : The lecture is divided into three parts. In the first part, the aim is to describe the reality of the “Compliance Contract”, which can be defined as the decision taken by an entity subject to a “Compliance Obligation” (most often a company, but it may also be a administrative organisation) to entrust the fulfilment of that obligation to a third party. This does not diminish the entity’s obligation to be accountable for the compliance structure, nor for its ability to produce the expected outcomes, in particular the behaviours that will contribute to achieving the Monumental Systemic Goals for which the compliance frameworks were adopted. This outsourcing is lawful; its contractual form falls under Contract Law and the principle of contractual freedom. Even if one considers that, since the subject matter of the contract is Compliance itself, it would constitute a ‘Systemic Contract’—just as Compliance Litigation is ‘Systemic Litigation’—its fundamental nature is indeed a bilateral relationship between a client and a professional (who is often subject to professional rules and codes of conduct). Indeed, there are legal consequences to this practice of “Compliance Contracts”, because it is the Compliance System that is thereby served: on the one hand, “regulatory clauses” will be inserted, whilst others will be removed (“deemed unwritten”). Contractual freedom remains the guiding principle, however. In Contract Law, it would be appropriate for the contracting parties to refer to this contribution to the Monumental Goals, which constitute the  fundamental legal norm of the Compliance System, if only to guide the contract Judge who may be called upon in the event of a dispute, as the interpretation of the parties’ intentions must be carried out in a teleological manner. In the second part, the relationship between this "Compliance Contract" and the various "Compliance Clauses" is analysed. The two should certainly not be confused, since, quite apart from these highly specific contracts through which the various compliance techniques are entrusted, in their drafting and management, to third parties, who thus become the experts, there are also clauses inserted into numerous contracts (sales, distribution, manufacturing, service, etc.), clauses which aim, amongst many other clauses serving different purposes, to incorporate compliance considerations into the contract. But first and foremost, the Compliance Contract contains numerous clauses specific to it, which often derive from compliance system, since Compliance concretisation is the very purpose of this specific contract, et nothing else: it is therefore logical that, by way of a ‘transparency effect’, the legal Compliance Systemic requirements should be incorporated into the isolated contract. Secondly, and more significantly, many various contracts contain clauses that provide for the triggering of a “Compliance Ccontract”. For example, when an audit clause is linked to a specific event and the provision stipulates that a contract will then be entered into with a particular expertal body or person, this will generate a Compliance Contract in a second time. The link between the two may give one of the contracting parties control over the other, notably if the expert is close to them. If the links between Compliance Contracts and Compliance Clauses are developping, this could lead to a return to vertical integration. Competition Law may be justified in looking into this.  It appears that, once we have distinguished between Compliance Contracts and Compliance Clauses, and then linked them together, we can arrive at a Contractual Compliance Strategy that is both legitimate and effective, provided that it contributes to the achievement of the Compliance Monumental Goals set by the political and public authorities.  Indeed, as soon as we distinguish between “conformity” – which is intended solely to compel the operator to obey all applicable regulations blindly and mechanically – and “Compliance Law”, which is legally guided by Monumental Systemic Goals, this contractual strategy becomes essential.   Part Three sets out to clarify the scope of this Compliance Contract. The first implication concerns the Compliance System itself, of which it forms a part; the Compliance Contract having the welcome effect of increasing the operator’s contribution to the achievement of the Monumental Systemic Goals (ensuring that systems – banking, financial, transport, energy, climate, digital, etc.—do not collapse and do not crush human beings, but rather benefit the human beings who are involved in them, whether willingly or not). To this end, the contract must enable the operator – where necessary by means of express provisions – to demonstrate its credibility in contributing to the achievement of these Monumental Goals. Reliable pathways and credible structures must be established. In the cas of technical implementation is outsourced by a Compliance Contract, this obligation to provide evidence may be undermined. To compensate for this, the Compliance Contract may itself include provisions relating to portable technical information, support available through the client's accountability mechanism, or even in the event of legal proceedings. The second aspect concerns the contractors themselves, who adapt their intentions and are bound, above all, by this “little law” which is any contract for the parties. This perspective is surprisingly underdeveloped in practice, no doubt because in Law, when considering Compliance, reference is made to unilateral “regulations” and the vertical relationship of obedience that it engenders in the operator.  This changes with the transformation of "conformity" (which is that) in "Compliance Law" (which is based on Monumental Systemic Goals and justifies contracts). The third aspect concerns third parties, namely the stakedholders (and competitors…). These third parties benefit from Compliance Contracts because they are integrated into the Compliance System and because of the transparency between this system and the Compliance Contracts. In fact, and more technically speaking, this specific Cgreement provides them not only with a accountable(the company, the public body, the State), but also with a contractual debtor. Stakeholders may assert rights against the latter. However, because the contracts themselves are also enforceable against third parties, they can anticipate these relationships with third parties – not only the competitors of the entity subject to the Compliance Obligation, but also its own relationship with stakeholders, and even its relationship with public authorities. Indeed, the object (and effect) of the Compliance Contract is to produce and build up Information that is of interest to everyone. The result is a ‘treasure trove of evidence’. A key question is how, and whether, this treasure trove can remain within the circle of the contracting parties or not. Indeed, the fourth area concerns Public Authorities. As the bodies that “uphold” the compliance system, they consider the Compliance Contract to be legitimate and one of the most effective means of ensuring that regulations are effective, efficient and properly enforced; however, they also wish to benefit from the outcome of the contract’s implementation: to access the systemic information it generates. The contracting parties do not always share this view, but the Compliance Contract is not a means of “obeying” regulations. It is the Judge who will certainly address this question of principle, which relates to the very definition of Compliance Law. This brings us to the fifth area of application, which concerns the Courts. Indeed, a number of courts are responsible for hearing such cases: the contract courts, the competition courts, the courts overseeing the various systems whose sustainability is thus safeguarded, and the courts specialising in vigilance legal duty  (which is the cutting edge of Compliance Law).  The issue of the “natural judge” was examined at the symposium held on 29 May 2026 on: Contractual litigation involving compliance: procedural and jurisdictional aspects. The judge hearing the contract case (civil or commercial judge) will tend to refer first and foremost to the contract. This is also why the Compliance Contract conceptor would be well advised to include provisions in its terms regarding its relationship with the Compliance System, so that it is not the authorities of that system who do so in a too much discretionary manner. In understanding the "Compliance Contract", as Iit was emphasised in 2022, in the judge’s interpretation of the contract, the judge is required to reconcile the parties’ intentions with a teleological approach, that is to say, to establish that the parties intended to serve the purpose of the expertise thus requested and developed (for the operator and ultimately for the stakeholders and for the system itself).  By establishing this convergence, the judge gives full effect to the Cmpliance Contract. Rather than framing the issue, as is so often done when reasoning in terms of ‘conformity’, as a conflict between contractual freedom and public policy (conformity serving a public policy that would be contrary to the contract, inferior norm in the vertical normative hiercharchy).  It must be accepted as a fundamental principle that contractual freedom, freedom of contract and a competitive market for compliance expertise are the most effective means of developing a Compliance System that will safeguard interconnected  different systems and protect the people involved in them. - ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance contract, compliance clauses, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts, - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐s'abonner à la Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the MaFR Law & Art newsletter

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Obligation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2026, to be published - 📕In parallel, a book in French L'Obligation de compliance, is published in the collection "Régulations & Compliance" co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz.  - 📚This book is inserted in this series created by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche for developing Compliance Law.  read the presentations of the other books of this Compliance Series: further books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Evidential System, 2027 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance and Contract, 2027   previous books: ​🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed), 📘Compliance Juridictionnalisation, 2023 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed), 📘Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance Tools, 2021 - ► go to the general presentation of this 📚Series ​Compliance & Regulation, conceived, founded et managed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, co-published par the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant.  - 🧮the book follows the cycle of colloquia organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its Universities partners. - ► general presentation of the book: Compliance is sometimes presented as something that cannot be avoided, which is tantamount to seeing it as the legal obligation par excellence, Criminal Law being its most appropriate mode of expression. However, this is not so evident. Moreover, it is becoming difficult to find a unity to the set of compliance tools, encompassing what refers to a moral representation of the world, or even to the cultures specific to each company, Compliance Law only having to produce incentives or translate this ethical movement. The obligation of compliance is therefore difficult to define. This difficulty to define affecting the obligation of compliance reflects the uncertainty that still affects Compliance Law in which this obligation develops. Indeed, if we were to limit this branch of law to the obligation to "be conform" with the applicable regulations, the obligation would then be located more in these "regulations", the classical branches of Law which are Contract Law and Tort Law organising "Obligations" paradoxically remaining distant from it. In practice, however, it is on the one hand Liability actions that give life to legal requirements, while companies make themselves responsible through commitments, often unilateral, while contracts multiply, the articulation between legal requirements and corporate and contractual organisations ultimately creating a new way of "governing" not only companies but also what is external to them, so that the Monumental Goals, that Compliance Law substantially aims at, are achieved.  The various Compliance Tools illustrate this spectrum of the Compliance Obligation which varies in its intensity and takes many forms, either as an extension of the classic legal instruments, as in the field of information, or in a more novel way through specific instruments, such as whistleblowing or vigilance. The contract, in that it is by nature an Ex-Ante instrument and not very constrained by borders, can then appear as a natural instrument in the compliance system, as is the Judge who is the guarantor of the proper execution of Contract and Tort laws. The relationship between companies, stakeholders and political authorities is thus renewed. - 🏗️general construction of the book The book opens with a substantial Introduction, putting the different sort of obligations of compliance in legal categories for showing that companies must build structures of compliance (obligation of result) and act to contribute with states and stakeholders to reach Monumental Goals (obligation of means).  The first part is devoted to the definition of the Compliance Obligation.  The second part presents the articulation of Compliance obligation with the other branchs of Law, because the specific obligation is built by Compliance Law, as new substantial branch of Law but also by many other branchs of Law. The third part develops the pratical means established to obtained the Compliance Obligation to be effective, efficace and efficient. The fourth part takes the Obligation  of Vigilance as an illustration of all these considerations and the discussion about the future of this sparehead fo the Compliance Obligation .  The fifth part refers to the place and the role of the judges, natural characters for any obligation.  - TABLE OF CONTENTS    ANCHORING THE SO DIVERSE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS IN THEIR NATURE, REGIMES AND FORCE TO BRING OUT THE VERY UNITY OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION, MAKING IT COMPREHENSIBLE AND PRACTICABLE    🔹 Compliance Obligation: building a compliance structure that produces credible results withe regard to the Monumentals Goals targeted by the Legislator, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   TITLE I. IDENTIFYING THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION   CHAPTER I: NATURE OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION Section 1 🔹 Will, Heart and Calculation, the three marks surrounding the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Section 2 🔹 Debt, as the basis of the compliance obligation, by 🕴️Bruno Deffains Section 3 🔹 Compliance Obligation and Human Rights, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Racine Section 4 🔹 Compliance Obligation and changes in Sovereignty and Citizenship, by 🕴️René Sève Section 5 🔹 The definition of the Compliance Obligation in Cybersecurity, by 🕴️Michel Séjean   CHAPTER II: SPACES OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION Section 1 🔹 Industrial Entities and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Etienne Maclouf Section 2 🔹 Compliance, Value Chains and Service Economy, by 🕴️Lucien Rapp Section 3 🔹 Compliance and conflict of laws. International Law of Vigilance-Conformity, based on applications in Europe, by 🕴️Louis d'Avout    TITLE II. ARTICULATING THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION WITH OTHER BRANCHES OF LAW   Section 1 🔹 Tax Law and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Daniel Gutmann Section 2 🔹 General Procedural Law, prototype of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Section 3 🔹 Corporate and Financial Markets Law facing the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Anne-Valérie Le Fur Section 4 🔹 Transformation of Governance and Vigilance Obligation, by 🕴️Véronique Magnier Section 5 🔹 The Relation between Tort Law and Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Jean-Sébastien Borghetti Section 6 🔹 Environmental and Climate Compliance, by 🕴️Marta Torre-Schaub Section 7 🔹 Competition Law and Compliance Law, by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda Section 8 🔹 The Compliance Obligation in Global Law, by 🕴️Benoît Frydman & 🕴️Alice Briegleb Section 9 🔹 Environmental an Climatic Dimensions of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marta Torre-Schaub Section 10 🔹 Judge of Insolvency Law and Compliance Obligations, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Barbièri   TITLE III. COMPLIANCE: GIVE AND TAKE THE MEANS TO OBLIGE   CHAPTER I: COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION: THE CONVERGENCE OF SOURCES Section 1 🔹 Compliance Obligation upon Obligation works, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Section 2 🔹 Conformity technologies to meet Compliance Law requirements. Some examples in Digital Law, by 🕴️Emmanuel Netter Section 3 🔹 Legal Constraint and Company Strategies in Compliance matters, by 🕴️Jean-Philippe Denis & 🕴️Nathalie Fabbe-Coste Section 4 🔹 Opposition and convergence of American and European legal systems in Compliance Rules and Systems, by 🕴️Raphaël Gauvain & 🕴️Blanche Balian Section 5 🔹 In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their Commitments and Undertakings, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   CHAPTER II: INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION Section 1 🔹 How International Arbitration can reinforce the Compliance Obligation, by  🕴️Laurent Aynès Section 2 🔹 Arbitration consideration of Compliance Obligation for a Sustainable Arbitration Place, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche Section 3 🔹 The Arbitral Tribunal's Award in Kind, in support of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Eduardo Silva Romero Section 4 🔹 The use of International Arbitration to reinforce the Compliance Obligation: the example of the construction sector, by 🕴️Christophe Lapp  Section 5 🔹 The Arbitrator, Judge, Supervisor, Support, by 🕴️Jean-Baptiste Racine   TITLE IV. VIGILANCE, SPEARHEAD OF THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION Section 1 🔹 Vigilance Obligation, Spearheard and Total Share of the Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   CHAPTER I: INTENSITIES OF THE VIGILANCE OBLIGATION, SPEARHEAD OF THE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM Section 2 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Financial Operators, by 🕴️Anne-Claire Rouaud Section 3 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Digital Operators, by 🕴️Grégoire Loiseau Section 4 🔹 Intensity of the Vigilance Obligation by Sectors: the case of Energy Operators, by 🕴️Marie Lamoureux   CHAPTER II: GENERAL EVOLUTION OF THE VIGILANCE OBLIGATION Section 1 🔹 Rethinking the Concept of Civil Liability in the light of the Duty of Vigilance, Spearhead of Compliance, by 🕴️Mustapha Mekki Section 2 🔹 Contracts and clauses, implementation and modalities of the Vigilance Obligation, by 🕴️Gilles J. Martin Section 3 🔹 Proof that Vigilance has been properly carried out with regard to the Compliance Evidence System, by 🕴️Jean-Christophe Roda Section 4 🔹 Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: put in order and keep the Reason, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   Title V. THE JUDGE AND THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION Section 1 🔹 Present and Future Challenges of Articulating Principles of Civil and Commercial Procedure with the Logic of Compliance, by 🕴️Thibault Goujon-Bethan Section 2 🔹 The Judge required for an Effective Compliance Obligation, by 🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche - CONCLUSION THE COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION: A BURDEN BORNE BY SYSTEMIC COMPANIES GIVING LIFE TO COMPLIANCE LAW   (conclusion and key points of the books, free access) - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Mission entrusted by the French Minister of Justice, Droit de la compliance, souveraineté juridique et attractivité économique (Compliance Law, Legal Sovereignty and Economic Attractiveness), 2025-2026. - 📜read the engagement letter of 5 September 2025 by which the French Minister of Justice entrusted Marie-Anne Frison-Roche with this mission (in French) - 📑The report of the mission, Déployer le Droit de la Compliance pour renforcer la souveraineté et accroître l’attractivité de la France avec l’Europe (Deploying Compliance Law to Strengthen France’s Sovereignty and Increase its Attractiveness with Europe), will be submitted to the French Minister of Justice in a French version and in an English version. - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐subscribe to the Video Newsletter MAFR Surplomb 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Droit & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Obligation de compliance et gouvernance bancaire (Compliance obligations and banking governance)", in Chair in Business Ethics: Compliance, ESG and Sustainability Reporting & National Association of Bank Lawyers (ANJB), Compliance et vigilance bancaire : la participation des acteurs du secteur bancaire et financier à la LCB/FT (Compliance and Banking Vigilance: the Participation of Banking and Financial Sector Players in AML/CFT) , Faculty of Law, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, 12 March 2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the event (in French) - 📶view the slides (in French) - 🌐read the summary of this conference and the colloquium on LinkedIn - 📝This lecture will form the basis of a contribution to a forthcoming book in the 📚Régulations & Compliance series, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz.   - ► English presentation of this introductory lecture of the symposium : Based on a specific method, three perspectives will be taken. In method, to shed light on the round tables making up the day's meetings without addressing the subject in their place or pretending to answer in advance the questions they will raise, or seeking to conclude in advance without having listened to anything, which is sometimes the flaw of introductions, which are so often a kind of disguised closing statement, with just a few question marks to give the impression of change, I have adopted the old, old method of the "triple funnel" introduction. This involves starting from a point other than the subject of the conference itself, Compliance and banking vigilance: the participation of banking and financial sector players in AML/CFT, in order to approach the subject from an external perspective and in a preliminary manner, nbsp;then moving on to a second external point, and doing so a third time, so that after this three-part presentation, the subject has been explored in sufficient depth to allow the following speakers to focus on the specific topic at hand. This is all the easier given that the chosen theme itself focuses on three points: a specific ambition (the "fight against money laundering and terrorist financing"), a specific sector (the "banking sector") and a specific activity carried out by individuals; three specific terms: one ambition (the "fighting agains AML/CFT""activity"). – one sectors (the "banking sector") and one active department (the "participation of stakeholders"). - My first starting point is to define what Compliance Law is in order to link Compliance Law to the subject it covers: the banking sector. Because if it were simply a matter of "being conform with applicable regulations", it is difficult to understand why the banking sector is so concerned, so constrained, so exposed to "compliance", which is simply the British way of saying "conformity". There must be more to it than simply obeying every rule and standards for preventing breaches for it, to be obliged to be so structuring and for the banking sector to be at the forefront. It therefore appears that Compliance Law is not simply mechanical obedience to a body of regulations, but rather the contribution made by systemic operators to the realisation of political ambitions that are essential for the future (the "Monumental Goals", both negative and positive). It is in this capacity that the banking sector, because it is composed of "crucial operators", is the natural subject of Compliance Law. Its power should not be criticised; it is indispensable. In an emerging branch of law that is systemic, that is Ex Ante, that is above all a Law of action whose object is the future. Techniques of conformity is only one tool. ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝 Monumental goals, the beating heart of compliance law, in  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕The monumental goals of compliance, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Birth of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance and conformity: distinguishing between them in order to articulate them, 2024 - My second starting point is to start with the "Monumental Goals", this normative foundation of Compliance Law, and link it to this present specific case, privileged ambition of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Certain things are surprising. Indeed, if we refuse at the introductory stage to delve into the technicalities of the texts and the litigation surrounding them, we may wonder why these two subjects (money laundering and terrorist financing) are linked in this way. We can see the correlation between banking activitird and money laundering. Notaries, auctioneers, and, in short, anyone who handles money are also involved in the fight against it. Moreover, if we see the ratio legis, the idea remains that the one who is merely the conduit (to use the familiar basis distinction in the regulatory rule of essential network infrastructure) could also be the one who organises the content: the image remains of the money laundering banker. Even if the ex ante compliance diligence whitewashes in advance, this suspicion that remains of an ex post sanction. We pay dearly for this representation, which permeates the repressive, even Criminal, Law of banking supervision, particularly in matters of secrecy, transparency, information and risk-taking. But why extend it to terrorist financing? Because the suspicion of terrorist bankers no longer exists. The case becomes clear-cut again. It is a matter of internalising within banks the sovereign responsibility to intervene before it is too late, before people are killed. Financing is the weak and visible point of systemic evil. This is understandable. It has moved from ex post (financial processing after the crime) to ex ante (financial processing before the crime). It is of a different nature. But if this is of a different nature, there is no reason to stop this Ex Ante surveillance, because money movements provide so much information about collective and individual projects. For example, in the digital space. We must be careful about this, in light of the principle of freedom, of which the principle of non-interference is only one aspect. ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Ex Ante – Ex Post Couple, Justification of a Specific Regulatory Law, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Les engagements dans les systèmes de régulation, 2006 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Ex Ante Responsability, a pillar of Compliance Law, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance, Vigilance and Civil Liability: Understanding and Keeping a Level Head, in  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕The obligation of compliance, 2025 - My third starting point is "Governance", a rather mysterious term, as it relates more to the political art of mobilising human beings than to Law. Why is it necessary for "actors" to participate, when legal norms are binding and, in most cases, take the form of Criminal Law? The combination of the most violent norms, the application of financial penalties, and even deprivation of liberty, being often claimed as a victory for financial and banking regulatory and supervisatory bodies , even as procedural principles are being rolled back, could be a source of incomprehension. Moreover, in a legal system that would be challenged by this "Governance", it is up to the State to dictate and the banks to obey. But if banks take charge of everything, it becomes difficult to maintain this system, and it is undoubtedly no longer tenable if the Monumental Goal expands to dimensions that exceed those of the State but correspond to those of the banks. The risk then is to move from one governing body to another, which is a growing social and political risk. In practical terms, banking operators can achieve this reversal in two ways. Firstly, by effectively involving the human beings who make up their organisations, both internally and externally, their partners and stakeholders. This can be called "Governance" in an alliance based on explicitcommon  goals, with contributions that are not taken at face value but are provided by "compliance structures", "credible behaviour" and "plausible trajectories". In this respect, mutual banks are in a better position than others. Training mechanisms, which are central to Compliance Law, play an essential role here. Secondly, alliances with public authorities and regional roots, with concrete assessments, are decisive. The contract then becomes not only the mandatory means by which the regulated bank fulfils its regulatory obligation, but also the most traditional legal tool by which it exercises its freedom to contribute, in its own way, to the achievement of Monumental Goals for the future of the social group, which is currently under threat. We are far beyond "conformity": this is called Compliance Law. ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝A substantive Compliance Law, based on the European humanist tradition,in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Towards a Europe of Compliance, 2019 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Training: content and context of Compliance Law, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📕Compliance tools, 2020 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Contract, compliance clauses, 2022 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, ⚙️Compliance and Contracts, 2026 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🏛️Official Mission given by the French Minister of Justice, Compliance Law, Work in progress, 2025 – 2026. - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "The Future of Compliance", series Compliance, Centre Perelman, Brussels, 23 February 2026. - 🧮view the full programme for the series Compliance (in French) - ► English presentation of this concluding conference in the series Compliance : The future of Compliance: who knows what it holds? Anyone who practises and studies the texts, litigation, structures and behaviours will have to admit that they do not know what will become of what has emerged as a new branch of law. It is not easily recognised, probably for three reasons. Firstly, because the birth of a new branch of law is an unusual phenomenon, whose disruptive and regenerative waves are felt in all branches of law and other regulatory systems, accompanying and reflecting the new world we have already entered, whether we like it or not. Secondly, because it is unpleasant (especially if you are a professor…) to begin and conclude with the fact that you do not know. Thirdly, because it is not very marketable, and in today's large and growing "compliance market", it is not very smart, if you want to sell compliance products (whether they be algorithms, new services to be linked to the highest level of companies, specialities in law firms, new chairs in various schools), to say that you don't know. So the experts say they know. For my part, I meet many people who are "experts" and who are "knowledgeable". What is surprising is the diversity of their discourse, which casts doubt on the solidity of the projection, particularly on the meaning of words: for example, not only words that could be described as "new" (which we then try to anchor in old words) such as "compliance/conformity" and "governance", but also words that we are undoubtedly more familiar with, such as "commitment" and "responsibility" or "sanction", i.e. the very pillars of the matter. Why is this a cause for concern, apart from the fact that it is always better to know what we are talking about, rather than everyone talking in their own corner, for their own compliance corpus, for their like-minded friends, with the subject matter becoming increasingly siloed? Because the object of Compliance Law is the future. So, the future of this branch of law which its object is the future is by nature very uncertain.   It will therefore be assumed in advance that not knowing the future is a major difficulty when it comes to Compliance Law, in that this branch of law is unified in that it is ex ante and its object is the future. The difficulty is neither of the same nature nor of the same magnitude when it comes to the legislator, the "regulator", the regulated company (calculating or political), or the judge faced with systemic compliance litigation. That said, in a first part, one can imagine the future possibilities for Compliance (because that is what it boils down to, given the number of candidates eager to seize the instruments of power that are the " Compliance tools"). It is not a foregone conclusion that this future will be governed by Law. The consequences could take care of that. Or the order given by the leader (Trump, for instance), and that would go down all the better as he states that he certainly does not care about human beings but that he wields the power of Compliance to restore the climate balance (through Chinese regulations): except to say that there is no unified Compliance Law. That there would be one for the climate and another for human rights. So what about the future consistency of European Law, which links the two in the CSRD and the CS3D? Particularly in value chains. The question then is: what will be the uniqueness of Compliance Law in the future? -   In a second part, since we do not know how things will turn out, from omnibus to omnibus, from a government hostile to the Law to a government appealing to the Due Process, from case law to case law, from special law to common law, we must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the various perspectives. There is never one perspective where everything is good and another where everything is bad, because in that case there would be no choice and no policy: it would be enough to have information, to be "rational" and to go for the right solution rather than the wrong one. Beyond general statements that a combination of compliance and ethics is welcome, which is not in doubt in the superb statements made in this regard, it is necessary to look at the advantages and disadvantages of the direction we may take. Firstly, there is the disappearance of Compliance Law, with the advantage of reducing the regulatory burden on those subject to it and the disadvantage of abandoning altruistic and global ambitions (these two Monumental Goals may overlap). Secundly, it could involve the creation of a global empire, with the advantage of a simplified American empire, whether extraterritorialised by the state or by companies and their governance or technology, with the advantage of a Western model and the disadvantage of the crushing of "mondialisation" by globalisation and the disappearance of the specific ambitions of States. Thirdly, it may be a contribution to a war between powers, particularly through the European DSA and the data war, with the advantage of European maturity in Compliance Law as an extension of Regulatory Law and the disadvantage that we could move from a war in the metaphorical sense (never use metaphors in Law) to a war. Quaterly, it could be a new rule of Law in which systemic companies participate in an alliance to achieve Monumental political Goals decided by States and political authorities, preserving systems for the future ("sustainability") so that human beings are not crushed by them but benefit from them. The disadvantage is that we have to relearn the Law, because although it has nothing to do with conformity, which is only an instrument, Compliance Law changes all branches of Law and requires the integration of other techniques, particularly political and technological ones. -   In third part, in practice, we must strive in advance to reduce the disadvantages associated with the shortcomings of possible future developments in Compliance Law, just as we must strive in advance to increase the advantages associated with the qualities of possible future developments in Compliance Law. The disadvantage lies in the very nature of Compliance Law, namely its great power, because unlike Competition Law, it calls for and increases power. We must therefore counteract the prospect of compliance techniques, particularly those related to Information, being monopolised by those who only want to use them to consolidate or extend their power, laughing at Ethics and Monumental Goals. This means that supervision techniques on the one hand and a renewed role for judges on the other must be considered. The quality attached to possible futures stems from the fact that we could uphold a "Global Law" (reference to the work of Benoît Frydman, among others) and that, faced with the possible disappearance of Public International Law and the imperative preservation of value chains, particularly in the context of possible war, the alliance between supervised systemic companies and the political authorities in charge of the future of the social group that legitimises them may appear to be a legitimate, effective, efficiate and efficient system. -   ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Conceiving Power, 2021 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Compliance Monumental Goals, 2022  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Birth of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and conformity: distinguishing between them to better articulate them, 2024 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Complianceo Obligation, 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, 2025 - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le Droit de la Compliance, voie de la transition vers une égalité effective, efficace et efficiente entre les êtres humains (Compliance Law, for the transition towards the effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency of the equality between human beings)", in Chair "Mutualist and cooperative banking at the service of the economy", ESCP, Les banques coopératives et les transitions​ (Cooperative Banks and Transitions), 29 January 2026. - 🧮view the general programme for the conference Cooperative banks and transitions (in French) - 📶see the slides (in French) - ► Presentation of this conference: The conference is not specifically aimed at lawyers, and even less so at specialists in Compliance Law. That is why it is divided into three parts, in order to show how Compliance Law is relevant in practice for creating effective, efficace and efficient equality between human beings. The first part of the lecture sets out the ambition of equality between human beings. As this is a political principle and not a natural one. As it is an ambition, it justifies being placed first and after that this ambition must be concretised, in a sort of second place. This second place is built bay a tro : that of effectiveness (real application of the norm), efficacy (that the goal for which the norm was established is achieved) and efficiency (that the system is transformed so that, having become robust, it endures through sustainabily). The second part of the conference will present the new branch of law known as Compliance Law. This should be distinguished from simple conformity, which consists of mechanically obeying a body of regulations that are constantly growing and becoming more complex. Compliance Law's Goal is to protect systems from risks that could cause them to disappear (all systems). "Sustainability" is the key principle, which is not limited to the climatic system (also digital system, banking system, and so on) and imposes the future as its object and the long term as its relevant time frame (unlike the market and Competition Law). "Transition" is also a key concept, as it involves moving from one state to another, from an expressed ambition to its realisation, through collaboration with others. These Goals are "Monumental" and are the normative legal basis of Compliance Law. In Europe, the Compliance Monumental Goal is to preserve systems for that the human beings who are involved in them, willingly or unwillingly, are not crushed by them, but rather benefit from them (for instance in banking sector). This is a "Monumental Negative Goal", to which is added a "Monumental Positive Goal", which a new conception of the "Ex Ante Responsability" (not liabily). Dialectically, the third part of the conference explains how Compliance Law internalises the political ambition of equality between human beings, which develops in the three concentric circles of effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency, among the operators best placed to contribute to it. Mutual banks belong to these circles more than the others. Firstly, because they are structured around the principle of taking human beings into consideration. Secondly, because they are rooted in their local areas. Thirdly, because they are driven by the long term, duration and sustainable. The transition est easer. The dificulty is the necessity to proof the effective and efficient will to do this transition. - ⛏️Go further  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Drawing the circles of Compliance Law, 2017 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Monumental goals, the beating heart of compliance law, 2021 🕴🏻C. Peicuti and 🕴🏻J. Beyssade, 📝The feminisation of management positions in companies as a compliance objective. The example of the banking sector, in 🕴🏻M. -A. Frison-Roche, 📘The Monumental Goals of Compliance, 2022  🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Births of a New Branch of Law: Compliance Law, 2024 - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Asset freezing in the legal saga between American power and Venezuelan wealth", MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation Newsletter, 23 January 2026 - 🌐read this article published on LinkedIn the 23 January 2026  - 📧Read other articles from the MAFR Newsletter – Law, Compliance, Regulation for free with a subscription. - ► Summary of this article  : It is often emphasised that the  law is merely a masquerade in the series of events we are witnessing. This is not entirely true. For three reasons. 1. Much will depend on the judge who will rule on the Madura couple's case. The energy sector has always similarly mixed regulation, public policies of states and businesses, both articulated by States and companies, both articulated by  international contracts, always organising international arbitration 3. If ExxonMobil now refuses to make the investments desired by Trump, it is also because this enterprise remembers that many years ago the freeze  of assets granted by the arbitrators was not very successful, and now the company manager believes that investment in  Venezuala's infrastructure is therefore "impossible". And given the current state of the law in the US, there is little Trump can do about it.. - 📝⤵Read the complete article below⤵ - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, Saisir les principes du Droit de la Compliance à travers l'actualité (Understanding the principles of compliance law through current current legal cases and events), Jean Moulin  – Lyon 3 University Law Faculty, 10 December 2025. - ► Methodological presentation of this 4-hour MasterClass : It is difficult to teach a branch of law that is still being developed, to find a way to open its doors, because if by explaining its principles ex abrupto, the risk exists of remaining at the door, even though the aim is to open it. This door is all the more blocked by the accumulation of multiple regulatory corpus, which are now perceived as being linked to Compliance Law: GDPR, Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, FCPA, etc.; These are highly technical and complicated, and tend to be studied in silos, with little connection between them and little articulation with the traditional branches of Law. Therefore, the principles that form the backbone of Compliance Law as an autonomous branch of Law are all the less apparent, even though they would make these "compliance blocks" more intelligible and manageable. However, setting out these principles, which shed light not only on the current positive law but also on how it will evolve, seems "theoretical". In order to open the door to this new branch of Law, which already occupies a significant place in practice and is set to expand, so that it can be handled by lawyers who understand its spirit and is not entirely dominated by those from other disciplines who will master its tools (risk mapping, assessment, internal investigation, etc.), most often through algorithms and platforms (compliance by design), it is relevant to start with a few cases, a few decisions, a few texts, and a few comments, to gauge what they reveal. Because the principles are already there. They are gradually emerging. The challenge is that they often emerge quickly, in a manner that is sufficiently consistent with other branches of Law, and that the legal aspect takes precedence. That is what is at stake today. Each hour is devoted to a different case, based on a document of a different legal genre. - 🌐read a post on LinkedIn (in French) - - ⛏️Find out more  : 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law, 2016 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Monumental Goals, the beating heart of Compliance Law, 2023 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝In Compliance Law, the legal consequences for Entreprises of their commitments and undertakings, 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Compliance Law and Systemic Litigation, 2025   - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, ""Géomètres-experts : une profession qui assume concrètement sa responsabilité territoriale Géomètres-experts : une profession qui assume concrètement sa responsabilité territoriale (Chartered Surveyors: a Profession that takes its territorial responsibility seriously)", interview for JurisHebdo, 27 November 2025 - ► Read the interview  (in French) in which the questions (translated below in English) were answered⤵ - Q.You helped define the raison d'être of the profession of chartered surveyors and its Professional Order. In your opinion, what is its true consequences?   Q. Can the raison d'être become a tool for Compliance or Governance?   Q. What conflicts arise around the source of compliance norms and their implementation?    Q. Is this initiative part of a broader move towards social responsibility?   Q. How can the raison d'être influence the mission of the chartered surveyor, particularly in relation to land and environmental matters?  - ⛏️Further reading on the subject: 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🎤Designing a raison d'être and explaining it, 2025 🕴🏻M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝The Monumental Goals of Compliance, the beating heart of Compliance Law, 2023 - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche,  ""Ordonner la Compliance : pourquoi le faire et comment le faire ? (Organising Compliance: why do it and how to do it?)", interview Focus on… conducted for Dalloz Actu Étudiants, 13 November 2025 - ► read the interview : 💬 Read the interview (in French) - 🌐read the interview presentation on LinkedIn (in French) 🌐read the interview presentation through the MAFR Newsletter Law, Compliance, Regulation, (in English) - ► presentation  of the interview by Dalloz Actu-Étudiants  : Compliance can be defined as a new branch of law that mobilises major economic players and their stakeholders to ensure that the large systems in which we live do not collapse, but remain solid and sustainable. Sanctions, contracts, ethical principles, court decisions and corporate cultures all converge to achieve this. The ambition is great, some contest it, many want to escape it. It is still difficult to define compliance, which seems to be going in all directions. Who? What? Why? How? These are all questions addressed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, professor of law and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC), together with the contributors to the collective works in the Régulations & Compliance series under her scientific direction. Compliance (JoRC), together with the contributors to the collective works in the "Regulations & Compliance" collection under her scientific direction, sheds light on with her imaginative power combined with her legal precision. - Q.Why do the fundamental objectives of compliance unify all legal compliance techniques? Summary of MAFR's response: because all these regulatory frameworks, which large companies are required to enforce effectively and which appear disparate, creating as many specific requirements as there are regulatory compliance blocks, find their unity when we consider the following reality: whatever the body of regulations in question (Sapin 2, Vigilance, Nis2, Dora, IAA, etc.), the aim is always to identify and prevent systemic risks so that these systems do not collapse.   Q. How can we define the obligation of compliance? Summary of MAFR response: the company concerned is therefore obliged to put in place "compliance structures", such as mapping, plans, alert structures and programmes (obligation of result), but of course, and this is the key point, to achieve this goal, namely to ensure that the system in question (banking, financial, climate, digital, algorithmic, etc.) does not collapse. This is an obligation of means. This is the exact, simple definition that unifies all the regulations of the Compliance Obligation for which subject companies are responsible.   Q. What conflicts arise around the source of compliance standards and their implementation?  Summary of MAFR's response: It must remain a matter of law. However, many argue that because it is only a matter of "compliance" and "ticking all the boxes", algorithms (which do not think or know anything) will do this, eliminating the need for lawyers and the law. This must be avoided. Furthermore, given the immense ambition of safeguarding systems, political and public authorities, businesses and stakeholders must join forces. They must not fight to bring each other down.   Q. What are the complexities of compliance law?  Summary of MAFR's response: I would not say "complexity", because although the regulations are complicated, compliance law is fairly simple and unified around its monumental goals of safeguarding systems, ensuring their future sustainability and protecting the people involved in them. However, it is a new branch of law that is still poorly understood and therefore sometimes poorly mastered. It therefore needs to be organised.   Q. What is your proposal for ordering it?  Summary of MAFR's response: Teaching more about compliance law will facilitate its organisation. The courts, to which all regulations converge through litigation, will participate in this organisation, which is necessary to ensure that regulations do not remain in silos and do not contradict each other when they have the same purpose, which constitutes their legal normativity. This new branch of law must also be articulated with all other branches of law. This is notably what the recently published book, L'obligation de compliance (The Obligation of Compliance), does. - 🌐Follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 🌐Subscribe to the video newsletter MAFR Overhang 🌐Subscribe to the Newsletter MaFR Law & Art