history

► 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. - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

Complete reference : Agacinski, S., Le Tiers-corps. Réflexions sur le don-d'organes, coll. "La librairie du XXIe siècle", Seuil, 2018, 240 p. Consult the table of contents. Read the back cover. Listen to his interview on France-Culture.    

Complete reference : Archives de Philosophie du Droit (APD), La laïcité, tome 48, Dalloz, 2005, 519 p.    Read the forth of cover. Read the table of contents. Read the summaries of the articles in English.    See the presentation of other volumes of Archives de Philosophie du Droit.

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

We sometimes believe Law is the new rules decided by the binding power of the State, rules which are only "positive law". This is false. Because current Law is the result of History (I), it is easy to see it through French institutions built in historical periods and conserved (II). But if it is true, how to really build Europe ? (III). I. Current Law is the result of History. Thus, the French law that governs us is the result of the history of French law, which itself was "polished" by the History of France. It cannot  be understood if one ignores everything that happened before, because history is still alive in the present legal rules. The Roman law, that medieval law, the law of the Old Regime, the "intermediate law" of the French Revolution are all present. Therefore, the strong influences of the North American law after the Second World War and European integration can cause some problems. Certainly, the law as it is an autonomous normative system raised its neutrality with respect to historical facts, especialy with cases on Nazis' behavior or genocides, but it is not a simple question. II. This impregnation of the law by its History says that all French institutional organization is marked by its history, including politics, the primary role of the executive, the place given to Parliament, the little regard for the Constitution, and aggressive ignorance of the judge is rooted in the French history. The French judicial organization itself is the result of the history of France, by the duality of orders of courts, as are the judicial courts in the relationship between the seat and the floor. III. Today, we tend to undermine the relationship between Law and History. If we don't, how do we build Europe between such different Nations? Whereas Europe includes Common Law countries and countries of Civil Law? If we don't separate Law and History, then Europe should only be a market area, except in finding a common core to all European histories, that could be the respects of human beings.