United States

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Le système juridique global des noms de domaine. Structure multi-acteurs et durabilité de l’Internet (The Global Legal System of Domain Names. Multi-Stakeholder Structure and Sustainability of the Internet), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, “Régulations & Compliance” series, forthcoming. - 📘 see also the presentation of the book published in English, in the “Compliance & Regulation” series: The Global Domain Name System in Law. Multi-Stakeholder Structure and Sustainability of the Internet, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Bruylant, forthcoming. - ► Read the presentations of the other books in the series: the following books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Le système probatoire de la Compliance, forthcoming   the previous books: 🕴️L. Laref (ed.), 📕Compliance et vigilance bancaire, forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Compliance et Contrat, forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L’Obligation de Compliance, 2025 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), 📕Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, 2024 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, 2023 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les outils de la Compliance, 2021 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019 🕴️N. Borga, J.-Cl. Marin and J.-Ch. Roda (eds.), 📕Compliance : l’entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, 2018 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Internet, espace d’interrégulation, 2016 📚See all the books of the series. - ► English 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. - ENGLISH PRESENTATION OF THE PROVISIONAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Putting into 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

► Full reference: A. Scalia and S. Breyer, “Original Intent and a Living Constitution”, debate organised by the Supreme Court Historical Society, moderated by James Duff, broadcast by C-SPAN, 23 March 2010. - ► Summary: two Justices of the United States Supreme Court compare their conceptions of constitutional interpretation. For Antonin Scalia, an “originalist”, the judge must abide by the meaning the text had for those who adopted it (original meaning, rather than the intent of its drafters): the Constitution is meant to impede change, and it is for the people, not the judges, to decide democratically the questions it does not settle; reliance on purpose and legislative history seems to him subjective and open to manipulation. For Stephen Breyer, a proponent of a “living Constitution”, the judge takes into account text, history, tradition and precedent, but also values and consequences: he does not invent rights, he applies enduring values to new circumstances, the purpose of a provision often being more accessible than its history. - 🎥watch an excerpt of the debate (short version) 🎥watch the full debate

► Full reference: B. Obama, “Professor POTUS on the Senate and the Supreme Court”, conversation with students and faculty at the University of Chicago Law School, 7 April 2016, video posted by The Obama White House on 27 April 2016. - ► Summary: back in April 2016 at the University of Chicago Law School, where he had taught constitutional law, President Barack Obama, while the Republican-led Senate refused to consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, explains as a professor the constitutional role of the Senate in the appointment of judges: to give its advice and consent, which presupposes hearing the nominee. He stresses that a partisan paralysis of the procedure would bring political polarisation into the judiciary and ruin public confidence in the courts, a confidence that democracy cannot afford to lose. - 🎥watch the video

► 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⤵

► Full Reference: R. Gauvain & B. Balian, “Opposition et convergence des systèmes juridiques américains et européens dans les règles et cultures de compliance” (“Opposition and Convergence of American and European Legal Systems in Compliance Rules and Cultures”), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L’Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, “Régulations & Compliance” Serie, 2025, pp. 401-417. - read the general presentation of the book, L’Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The authors approach Compliance Law through its tools, mainly compliance programmes through which companies comply with regulations and investigations conducted by companies at the request of public authorities to identify risks and new modes of defence consisting of entering into agreements with prosecuting authorities. The article highlights the American inspiration behind this movement, whereby the State, primarily for the sake of efficiency, transfers the responsibility for pursuing “Monumental Goals” to businesses. Based on this, the article first shows how American mechanisms have been imported into Europe, particularly France, with the Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public, taking on many of the characteristics of the DPA, even if some specific features remain, for example in the alert mechanisms. Secondly, the convergence between the two systems is shown, because through the compliance obligations that form the core of these compliance tools, it is always Western values that are expressed, values that are common to American Law and European Law and European countries. It has enabled this importation, and we can now see that these values are more strongly upheld by Europe, particularly through the Vigilance duty and the DSA. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: P. Bonis & M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Réguler le numérique, ou Sisyphe heureux" (Regulating Digital, or a happy Sisyphus), in P. Bonis & L. Castex (dir.), Compliance et Nouvelles Régulations, Les Annales des Mines, series "Enjeux numériques, June 2025, pp. 5-7. - 📝read the article (in French) - 📗read the table of content of this special issue of Enjeux numérique, Régulation et Compliance (in French), in which this introductory article is published. - ► English Summary of this article: This introduction to the collective publication on Regulation and Compliance, which aims to bring order to the Digital space, takes up the idea expressed by Camus when he referred to 'happy' Sisyphus, and expresses the idea that Regulation and Compliance are applied to this area with difficulty, relentlessness and failure, with texts constantly being adopted, modified and amplified on all sides, while the Digital Space is constantly changing, and the slope is constantly being climbed again. But this should not be seen as a failure, not even a flaw, because it is in the nature of digital regulation to always place the regulatory apparatus on our shoulders. This weight is shared by all, by the Authorities of all countries, because there is something common to all and also because there is something specific for each, because the techniques differ and because the visions of the world that the Politicians print in the texts and project in the Digital will always differ. This weight is also shared by companies, which internalise the rules through Compliance mechanisms, making them necessary agents for the efficiency and sustainability of the digital system, but also players in it, in articulation with Internet users in a permanent and unstable articulation with the local to the finest and this global that the Internet has invented. This presentation opens the series of contributions to the collective publication Régulation et Compliance, which makes up this special issue of Enjeux numériques in Annales des Mines. - 🌐read also the English presentation of:🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, 📝Le Droit de la compliance, voie royale pour réguler l'espace numérique (Compliance Law as a Royal Road for regulating the Digital Space)

► Full Reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Le juriste, requis et bien placé pour le futur" (The lawyer needed and well placed for the future), in Groupe Lamy Liaisons, Les Éclaireurs du Droit,  Hôtel de l’Industrie, Place Saint Germain des Près, Paris, 11 March 2025, 16h. - This speech opens a series of 4 workshops on the following themes: – The challenge of Trust – The challenge of Risk – The challenge of Transmission – The challenge of  leadership - 🧮see the full programme of this manifestation (in French) - ⬜see the slides basis made for this speech (which were not projected) (in French) -  watch the short video made after the conference (in French) - ► English Summary of this introductory conference: The 4 sessions will address the successive themes of trust, risk, transmission and leadership, which legal professionals are facing, particularly as a result of algorithms. For an introductory analysis, it is possible to make a distinction inside the Future. The future has a part of Stability: the jurist can contribute to this stability, i.e. the preservation of the past (I). The future has an part of Predictability: the lawyer must increase this part in the present itself (II). The future has a part of radical novelty (III): at this point, which may correspond to a precipice, if no one had imagined it, the lawyer can also be there. Until now, we think of lawyers more in the first 2 hypotheses, less in this one. Is it pertinent? In each of these dimensions, the algorithmic system (AI) is presented as replacing or dominating the human. In each of these 3 dimensions, Lawyers must be present, as they form a community that must remain united around the very idea of Law (algorithms do not conceive ideas, it is humans who transmit them to other humans, and the algorithmic system must remain a medium). As far as the Stability of the future is concerned, the Lawyer can and must contribute to it, in particular through Transmission, because there is less of a blank page as algorithmic 'creation' is based on past data, and training, where the human being will be all the more central as machines have to be handled. As far as the Predictability of the future is concerned, it is a question of assessing the Risks, whether specific or systemic, legal or non-legal, in order not to take them or on the contrary to take them. The more the Lawyer is involved in risk-taking, the more he or she will be in the right place, before and during the action. As far as the Radically New future is concerned, it is not easy to qualify AI as such or not, but now the possible disappearance of the Rule of Law in the United States is one of them. All Lawyer are expected. Every lawyer must have two virtues (which the algorithm cannot not have): the virtue of Justice and the virtue of Courage. It is these virtues that we must pass on and share.       - Current events have led me to devote the time available to me to focusing on a single perspective, the third, to say what is expected of Lawyers if we perceive something radically new in the near future, what everyone does. Indeed, in the United States, on the one hand there is a head of state for whom the Law does not exist and who uses the power of regulation to express his absolute indifference to other states, companies and human beings, and on the other an entrepreneur who claims that he is going to become the master of algorithmic technology, a system over which he already wields great power. Faced with this Radical Novelty, we expect the community of Lawyers, all lawyers, whatever their place, their technical mastery, their level, their nationality, to speak out and say No. As Kelsen, Cassin or Ginsberg did. Say No and help others to say No. To do this, Lawyers, as human beings who care about other human beings, must be aware of the twofold virtue expected of them: the virtue of commitment to Justice and the virtue of Courage.

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The puzzle of Institutional Compliance Law and Substantive Compliance Law: the example of the European Regulations of 31 May 2024 on AMLA and enterprises compliance obligations​, Working Paper, January 2025.   - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 11 January 2024 :   - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance Law is built on 2 legs, Institutions on the one hand and substantive rules on the other. For example in the United States, the 1934 Act established at the same time the prohibition and prevention of financial market abuse and the SEC. In Europe, in 2013, the Banking Union established institutions to build this Union and increased the obligations on banks. This is perfectly illustrated by the 2 European Regulations of 31 May 2024, one creating the AMLA and the other reinforcing the compliance obligations of crucial economic operators, one text referring to the other. Indeed, Institutional Compliance Law and Substantive Compliance Law are like 2 articulated legs. You have to know both and make them work together. This is part of the "European puzzle", a positive expression which implies that, when assessing and interpreting a text, we should always bear in mind that it is only one element of a general picture, which is coloured by its Monumental Goal: in this case to obtain a European area where money laundering is efficiently prevented thanks to the action of the companies themselves under the supervision and support of a Supervisory Authority which coordinates the actions of the States. If we consider only one element, we find everything 'complicated', whereas the overall picture is simple, because the Goal is simple and in Compliance Law, a branch of Teleological Law, everything is in the Monumental Goal.   - 🔓read the developments below ⤵️

► Full Reference: G. Wright & L. Chetcuti, US Extraterritoriality: The Trump Card, Institut Montaigne, Explainer, December 2024, 62 p. - 📓read the Explainer - 📓read the English Summary of the Explainer - 📓read the presentation of this Explainer made on the Institut Montaigne's website - ► English Summary of the Explainer (done by the Authors): "Extraterritoriality — the application of national laws abroad — has grown exponentially over the last two decades. In a world characterized by strategic competition and weak international organizations, many countries are turning to law to secure their interests. None more than the United States. There are good and bad uses of US extraterritoriality. It has become a key tool to uphold international law and to safeguard the US’ interests. It has helped to sanction hostile states and combat corruption, money laundering, organized crime and terrorism. It has helped to reduce excessive risk-taking by companies and has been used to manage US-China systemic rivalry. However, the US has also been accused of using it as a way to assert market dominance. Could extraterritoriality be the next Trump Card the United States plays? During his first term, President Trump tightened export controls and expanded US laws to combat human rights abuses. At the same time, he rolled back banking regulations and asked his team to review US laws that created unnecessary red tape. Recently, he warned that he would remove any sanctions that weakened the dollar’s dominant position. The extent to which extraterritoriality is used to exert political pressure on EU countries is unclear. The EU must be better prepared. Companies that fail to comply with US rules risk huge fines, handover of sensitive data and exclusion from the US market. European companies often prefer to comply with US rules, rather than abide by European measures designed to block their application. This poses a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the EU and its member states. Institut Montaigne’s latest issue paper provides a framework for understanding all dimensions of US extraterritoriality and offers decision-makers and businesses a roadmap for an informed response. Understanding the implications of US extraterritoriality is crucial for governments and businesses, and should be integral to the EU's approach to economic security.". -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Naissance d'une branche du Droit : le Droit de la Compliance" ("Birth of a branch of Law: Compliance Law"), in Mélanges offerts à Louis Vogel. La vie du droit, LexisNexis – Dalloz – LawLex – LGDJ, 2024, pp. 177-188. - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - ► English Summary of the article:  The study focuses on the various movements that have given rise to Compliance Law, with particular emphasis on Competition Law. After a preliminary reflection on the construction of the legal system into branches of Law, their classification in relation to each other, the difficulty encountered in this respect by Economic Law, and the various movements that give rise to one of them, the diversity of which the branch subsequently keeps track of, the study is constructed in 4 parts. To find out what gave rise to Compliance Law, the first part invites everyone to reject the narrow perspective of a definition that is content to define it by the fact of "complying" with the applicable regulations in the sens to obey them automatically. This has the effect of increasing the effectiveness of the regulations, but it does not produce a branch of Law, being only an efficiency tool like any other. The second part of the study aims to shed light on what appears to be an "enigma", because it is often claimed that this is the result of a flexible method through the "soft law", or of an American regulation (for instance FCPA), or of as many regulations as there are occasions to make. Instead, it appears that in the United States, in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis, it was a question of establishing an authority and rules to prevent another atrocious collapse of the system, while in Europe, in 1978, in memory of the use of files about Jews, it was a question of establishing an authority and rules to prevent an atrocious attack on human rights. A common element that aims for the future ("never again"), but not the same object of preventive rejection. This difference between the two births explains the uniqueness and diversity of the two Compliance Law, the tensions that can exist between the two, and the impossibility of obtaining a global Compliance Law. The third part analyses the way in which Competition Law has given rise to conformity mechanisms: they had only constituted a secondary branch which is a guarantee of conformity with competition regulations. Developed in particular through the soft law issued by the competition authorities, the result is a kind of "soft obedience", a well-understood collaboration of a procedural type through which the company educates, monitors and even sanctions, without going outside Competition Law, of which compliance  (in the sens of conformity) is the appendix. The distance between a conformity culture and Compliance Law can be measured here. The fourth part aims to show that Competition Law and Compliance Law are two autonomous and articulated branches of Law. Since Compliance Law is a autonomous and strong branch of Law built around Monumental Goals, in particular the sustainability of systems and the preservation of the human beings involved so that they are not crushed by these systems  but benefit from them : the current challenge of European integration is to build the pillar of Compliance Law alongside the competitive pillar. Jurisdictions are in the process of doing this and articulating them.

► Full reference : B. Fiorini, « Approche doctrinale de l’enquête interne et de l’enquête pénale privée » (A Doctrinal Approach to Internal Investigations and Private Criminal Investigations), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 63-68 - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The author sets out the two deeply distinct, even opposed, cultures of inquisitorial and adversarial punitive procedural systems. The former give trust and power to public officers to find the truth, the latter give trust and power to the parties opposed in the dispute. Investigations conducted privately develop naturally in the second system and not in the first. This second way of thinking is rooted in the United States, which therefore naturally welcomes internal investigations conducted by companies and associates with them procedural principles such as the rights of the defence, the adversarial principle and the right to a lawyer. The first system, characteristic of Continental Law systems, is reluctant towards the very idea of a private criminal investigation. This is why, when the mechanism of internal investigation develops within companies, these procedural mechanisms are less naturally associated with it. - ► Full Reference: B. Fiorini, "Approche doctrinale de l’enquête interne et de l’enquête pénale privée" ("Doctrinal approach to internal investigations and private criminal investigations"), in M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance", 2024, pp. 63-68 - 📕read a general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published - ► English Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author sets out the two profoundly distinct, even opposing, cultures of inquisitorial and adversarial repressive procedural systems. The former gives confidence and power to public officials to find the truth, while the latter gives confidence and power to the opposing parties in the dispute. Private investigations naturally develop in the second system and not in the first. This second system of thought is rooted in the United States, which naturally welcomes internal investigations carried out by companies and associates procedural principles such as the rights of the defence, adversarial proceedings and the right to a lawyer. The first system, characteristic of Continental Law systems, is resistant to the very idea of a private criminal investigation. This is why, when the internal investigation mechanism develops within a company, the procedural mechanisms mentioned above are less naturally associated with it. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full reference : V. Chatelin, « Enquêtes internes, enquêtes pénales et droits de la défense : que nous disent les jurisprudences américaine et anglaise (l’affaire Connolly et l’affaire ENRC) ? » (Internal Investigations, Criminal Investigations and the Rights of the Defence: What Do American and English Case Law Tell Us (the Connolly and ENRC Cases)?), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 163-169. - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The article justifies its focus on American and British case law by the fact that internal investigations are an older practice there and that cases show that, when they are conducted in connection with the authorities – the DoJ in the United States, the SFO in the United Kingdom – they can endanger the rights of the defence of those interviewed, and then the relationship between the company that wrongly cooperates and the law firm that assisted it. In support, the article describes in detail the American cases Gavin, Coburn & Schwartz and Tournant, then the British ENRC case, which gave rise to several decisions in the United Kingdom and illustrates the dangers created by the failure of lawyers in charge of the internal investigation to respect professional secrecy.

► Full reference : S. L. Dreyfuss, « La lutte anti-corruption : l’emprunt au modèle américain et à ses récentes évolutions » (The Fight against Corruption: Borrowing from the American Model and Its Recent Developments), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 253-258. - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : Relying on the relevance of paying particular attention to American mechanisms, since they so strongly inspire European and French legislators, for example between the DPA and the CJIP, the author describes the features of the new system introduced in 2022 and 2023 by the DoJ: the Declination and the Presumption of Declination. Without requiring any authorisation or approval by a judge, the DoJ grants the benefit of a guarantee of non-prosecution, a guarantee given to the company through what the author presents as a “contract”, in exchange for which the company provides its full cooperation, in particular all the evidence at its disposal, first and foremost against itself. Unlike France, where the investigation is conducted by the company itself, the DoJ thus feeds the investigation which it directs and over which it retains full control, having moreover the material and human resources to conduct it.

► Full Reference: B. Sillaman, “Privilege Lessons from the U.S.”, in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, coll. “Compliance & Regulation“, 2024, pp. 251-255. - read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance): The French legal system is evolving, organizing interaction between lawyers with regulators and prosecutors, specially in investigations about corruption or corporate misconduct, adopting U.S. negotiated resolutions such as the Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public, which encourages “collaboration” between them. The author describes the evolution of the U.S. DOJ doctrine and askes French to be inspired by the U.S. procedural experience, U.S. where this mechanism came from. Indeed, the DOJ released memoranda about what the “collaboration” means. At the end (2006 Memorandum), the DOJ has considered that the legal privilege must remain intact when the information is not only factual in order to maintain trust between prosecutors, regulators and lawyers. French authorities do not follow this way. The author regrets it and thinks they should adopt the same reasoning as the American authority on the secret professionnel of the avocat, especially when he intervenes in the company internal investigation. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Births of a branch of Law: Compliance Law, Working Paper, November 2023. - 📕This Working Paper was drawn up as a basis for a contribution to the collective book given to Professor Louis Vogel, published in 2024 - ► Summary of this Working Paper: The study looks at the various movements that have given birth to Compliance Law, with particular emphasis on Competition Law. After a preliminary reflection on the construction of the legal system into branches of Law, their classification in relation to each other, the difficulty encountered in this respect by Economic Law, and the various movements that give birth to one of them, the diversity of which the branch subsequently keeps track of, the study is constructed in 4 parts. To find out what gave rise to Compliance Law, the first part invites us to reject the narrow perspective of a definition that is content to define it by the fact of "being conform" with all the applicable regulations. This has the effect of increasing the efficacy of the regulations, but it does not produce a branch of Law, being just a set of tools like others. The second part of the study aims to shed some light on what appears to be an "enigma", as it is often claimed that this is the result of a soft method, or of an American political decision, or of as many regulations as there are occasions to make. Instead, it appears that in the United States, in the aftermath of the 1929 crisis, it was a decision of establishing an authority and rules to prevent another atrocious collapse of the system, while in Europe in 1978, in memory of the use of files of personal and racial information, it was a question of establishing an authority and rules to prevent an atrocious attack on human rights. A common element that aims for the future ("never again") but not the same object of preventive rejection. This difference between the two births explains the uniqueness and diversity of the two Compliance Laws, the tensions that can exist between the two, and the impossibility of obtaining a global Law. The third part analyses the way in which Competition Law has given rise to conformity: a secondary branch which is a guarantee of conformity with competition rules. Developed in particular through the soft law issued by the competition authorities, the result is a kind of soft obedience, a well-understood collaboration of the procedural type through which the firm educates, monitors and even sanctions, without leaving  the cercle of Competition Law, of which conformity is an appendix. The distance between a culture of conformity and the substantial Compliance Law can be measured here. The fourth part aims to show that Competition Law and Compliance Law are two autonomous and articulated branches of Law. Since Compliance Law is a branch of Law built on Monumental Goals, in particular the sustainability of systems and the preservation of the human beings involved so that they are not crushed by them but benefit from them, the current challenge of European integration is to build the pillar of Compliance Law alongside the competitive pillar. Jurisdictions are in the process of doing this and of linking the two.   - 🔓read the Working Paper 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 Surplomb

► Full Reference: J.-Ch. Roda, “Compliance, Internal Investigations and International Competitiveness: What are Risks for the French Companies (in the Light of Antitrust Law)?”, in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Monumental Goals, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, “Compliance & Regulation” Serie, 2023, pp. 355-368. - read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Monumental Goals, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article: The author draws on American and European Competition Law to measure whether internal investigations, as far as they provide factual elements, can provide foreign authorities and competitors, here American, with “sensitive information” (notably via leniency programs), and as such constitute a competitive handicap. But this turns out to be quite difficult, whereas compliance audits, for example under the legal duty of vigilance, can provide American litigants with useful information, drawn from internal documents, in particular the reports of compliance officers, which can be captured by procedures of discovery. French Law remains weak in the face of these dangers, due to its refusal to recognise the legal privilege mechanism concerning these internal documents, contrary to American Law and the consequent effectiveness of discovery in international procedures, concerning internal documents, in particular resulting from internal investigations. Solutions have been proposed, the activation of a new conception of blocking statutes being complex, the prospect of adopting a legal privilege being more effective, but there would remain the hypothesis of an international conflict of privilege, American Law having a strict design of legal advice justifying it and judges checking that powerful companies do not use it artificially. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -