Politics

► 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, "Régulation" (Regulatory Law), in J.-Fr. Kerléo et E. Lemaire (dir.), Dictionnaire de l'éthique publique, LexisNexis, 2025, pp.  - 📗read the general presentation of the Dictionary. - 📝read the article  (in French) - ► English Summary of this article defining Regulation: To define Regulation (Regulatory Law), the article begins with its origins, which were a source of misunderstanding, since the term Regulation might refer to simple regulations, thus masking the real branch of Law which is the Law of Regulation. But this confusion with simple and formal regulations has diminished Regulatory Law its importance, its novelty and its originality, and, by placing it within Public Law, equated Regulation on the one hand with the transition from public monopolies to a competitive organisation, and on the other hand privileged the legal study of what fell within the remit of the Administrative Courts, i.e. telecommunications, transport and energy, leaving out the Regulatory Law of banking and financial sector . As a result, the unity and strength of Regulatory Law is still difficult to perceive and manage today, while its relationship with competition and Europe remains difficult. Regulatory Law is all the more difficult to define because it is still common to oppose, as was the case in the 1980s, "Economic Regulatory Law", which would aim to set economic efficiency objectives within the State, and "Public Liberties Regulatory Law", which would be alternatives to each other, preventing the audiovisual, media and digital sectors in particular from being legally perceived as an industry. We are still paying for this initial conception. All the more so since Regulatory Law is the second pillar on which Europe is built, along with Competition, with which it is linked. It can be identified by the existence of a regulated 'sector', most often through the establishment of a regulatory authority, generally in the form of an Independent Administrative Body. But it is defined by the prevalence of the technical and political goals pursued, which are not spontaneously achieved and which aim to favour the human beings involved in economic organisations. While the function of Competition Authorities is to maintain the dynamism of competitive markets and to punish behaviour that hinders them without creating that dynamism, Regulatory Law, through its own rules, principles, institutions, procedures and decisions, will create non-spontaneous équilibra and maintain them over time.  To do this, it will inject non-spontaneous procedures, such as transparency, or generate obligations and powers because these are necessary for this balance to be achieved. This can take the form of exclusive rights, which can go as far as the creation of monopolies, particularly on transport infrastructures, or the form of pricing and tarification, which can go as far as free access. Access rights are essential, whether technical or political (access to networks, access to healthcare). The political dimension of Regulatory Law is very much in evidence, as Europe is developing its own form of Regulation compared with the USA or China, demonstrating the link between Regulation and Sovereignty, the criterion? of the technical sector becoming less significant. This is illustrated by the clash over algorithmic systems (AI).  In this way, regulation is not a technical reaction to a "market failure", but the manifestation of a zone's political power both internally and externally. The DSA (2022) is an example of this, imposing this same logic extraterritoriality in the digital space through the Digital Services Act (DSA) adopted in 2022. - 📝read the presentation of the other article written by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche for this Dictionary: "Compliance" - 🌐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

🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La vigilance, pièce d'un puzzle européen" ("Vigilance, a piece of the European puzzle"), in I.Grossi (ed.), La société vigilante, JCP E, No. 31-35, 3 août 2023, pp. 57-58. - 📙this article is the conclusion of this special issue. It is linked to the introductory article of this special issue: 📝Penser et manier la vigilance par ses buts monumentaux de compliance (Thinking and using Vigilance through its Compliance Monumental Goals) - 🧮the 2 articles follow on from the introductory and concluding speeches in the colloquium La Société vigilante, held at the University of Aix Marseille on 24 March 2023 - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper which is the basis of this article, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - ► Summary of the article: The contributions form a contrasted whole. It should not be concluded that some of them are correct and others false: through the reading that each one makes of the so-called French 2017 "Vigilance law," it is a vision of the world as it should be that each author proposes. Because Compliance Law, which Vigilance is a part, claims to draw the future, it is normal that each author should draw the present Law with a hand that bends in one direction or the other, following their conception of the future world. The whole contributions must be seen as a dialogue. A lively dialogue, with this French 2017 law receiving a lot of "glory" and a lot of "indignity" on both sides, from which it is necessary to emerge in order to find solutions, because it is a fundamental movement of which this law is only a gateway (I).  Whatever one thinks of it, it is all the branches of law that are used, affected, and transformed by Vigilance (II). To master this profound transformation, we must turn to Europe, to the great puzzle of texts recently adopted or in the process of being adopted in the European Union, of which Vigilance is the hallmark (III). - 📝read the article (in French) -

Full reference: Bayrou, F., Electricité: le devoir de lucidité (Electricity: the duty of lucidity), note n°4 from the Haut-Commissariat au Plan (French government planification agency), 23rd of March 2021, 37 p.   Read the note (in French) Read the summary of the note done by the Haut-Commissariat au Plan on is official website (in French)

Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Se tenir bien dans l'espace numérique, in Penser le droit de la pensée. Mélanges en l'honneur de Michel Vivant, Lexis Nexis and Dalloz, 2020, pp. 155-168. - 📝Read the article (in French) - 🚧Read the working paper, written in English, on which this article is based, with additional developments, technical references, and hyperlinks   English summary of the article: The digital space is one of the scarce spaces not framed by a specific branch of Law, Freedom also offering opportunity to its actors to not "behave well", that is to express and diffuse broadly and immediately hateful thoughts through Hate speechs, which remained before in private or limited circles. The intimacy of Law and of the legal notion of Person is broken: Digital permits to individuals or organizations to act as demultiplied and anonymous characters, digital depersonalized actors who carry behaviors that are hurtful to other's dignity.  Against that, Compliance Law offers an appropriate solution: internalizing in digital crucial operators the mission to disciplinary and substantially hold the digital space. The digital space has been structured by powerful firms able to maintain order. Because Law must not reduce digital space to be only a neutral market of digital prestations, these crucial operators, like social networks or search engines, must be forced to substantially control behaviors. It could be about an obligation of internet users to act with their face uncover, "real identity" policy controlled by firms, and to respect others' rights, privacy rights, dignity, intellectual property rights. In their Regulatory function, digital crucial firms must be supervised by public authorities.  Thus, Compliance law substantially defined is the protector of the person as "subject of law" in the digital space, by the respect that others must have, this space passing from the status of free space to the one of civilized space, in which everyone is obliged to behave well.  -   Read to go further:  Frison-Roche, M.-A., L'apport du Droit de la Compliance à la gouvernance d'Internet, 2019 Frison-Roche, M.-A. (dir.), Internet, un espace d'interrégulation, 2016 - 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn 🌐follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram 🌐subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

► Full Reference: L. Idot, "Brefs regards sur 60 ans de politique européenne de concurrence", Rev. UE, 2018, pp. 639-649 - ► English Summary of the article (made by the author) : "Among the most effective European policies, although often misunderstood, the competition policy is the subject of the same debates as the European construction itself. The deepening of the latter gives rise to permanent confrontation between the quest for efficiency and the quest for legitimacy. At the same time, this policy has spread widely first in the European Union, particularly as a result of modernization, but also beyond the borders of the Union. Sixty years later, the existence of a model that contributes significantly to the spread of a European competition culture is undeniable.". - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Droit de la concurrence et droit de la compliance ("Competition Law and Compliance Law), November 2018,  in Revue Concurrences n° 4-2018, Art. n° 88053, pp. 1-4.  -   ► Summary: Compliance Law is a new branch of Law, still under construction. One can have a “narrow definition” of seeing it as the obligation of businesses to show that they are constantly and actively complying with the law. One can have a richer definition, of a substantive nature, defining it as the obligation or the own will of certain companies to achieve “monumental goals” that go beyond economic and financial performance. Competition Law partly integrates its two conceptions of Compliance: Precursor, Competition Law concretizes dynamically the first conception of Compliance Law. It is with more difficulties but also much more future that Competition Law can express in dialectic the second conception of Compliance Law as internationalization of these “monumental goals”, especially in the digital space. -   📝 read the article (in French) - 🚧read the Working Paper on which this Article is based, with footnotes, technical references and hypertext links.     -

 Bank and Competition do not mix. It is not so much that the banks would act as repeat offenders on which the competition authorities should raise the tone by increasingly heavy penalties so that the competitive lesson is finally heard. It is rather two orders confronting each other, two incomprehensions face to face. Indeed, the banks find it appropriate to agree in order for the banking system to function. Moreover, governments demand them political behavior by financing the economy when the economy does not rely on financial markets. Hence, how would they themselves behave in a market consisting of selfish behavior and aggression towards their counterparts? If we plunge into this melting pot of incomprehension that engenders the violent clash between the banks, which evoke their mission, even their duty, and the competition authorities which avail themselves of theirs, we run into the pitfall of the definition even of what a bank is. It can be estimated that a bank is a provider of various services, operating in competing markets. In this perspective, the law ensures the proper functioning, the authorities that keep the efficiency of the markets seizing the banks that carry out their activities. But if we choose to insist that banks are what make the economy work and strengthen the social bond, then they are an integral part of their own system: the banking system. Moreover, the latter is an essential element of society, a perspective in which competition is merely contiguous. The more Europe manages to build banking Europe, the more it elaborates a mechanism for resolving difficulties, the more the bank is above all a matter of State and not of financial markets. In what is the political course of the history of peoples, competition ceases to be its first measure. It is therefore necessary to start from the undisputed existence of banking markets and the competitive mechanism which the law correlates with (I)). But the scale of the resistance reveals that it seems to have intentionally or not to have passed on the elementary and the essential: the very definition of what is a bank II. If it is accepted that the bank is the operator of the banking system, which fuels the economy as a whole, then competition law has only an adjacent role and can not constitute its backbone (III). The European Banking Union is demonstrating this.  

The expression "regulated company" may appear as an oxymoron : the State  regulates areas (markets, networks, etc.) because of their structural failures, but the State doesn't enter a company that develops its activities autonomously. But on reflection, it is sometimes necessary to "regulate a company" and this necessity is increasingly imposed. This is imperative if a company absorbs the entire area, because it is a monopoly or because it wants to become the heart of a crucial area, such as Google which has the project to become the future global brain. In a more general way, it is a necessity to  locate businesses which are "crucial", banks are only one example, and organize, beyond supervision, providing direct regulation of such firms. This regulatory power on critical firms must take the form of attendance of public power and policy within the company itself, so that the state interfere in decisions which social group suffers the consequences. The control can go beyond this "public presence" to take the form of "public authority", the state ruling as operator. Under such conditions of "cruciality", the neutralization of "public enterprise" by the competition law must cease, the public company must be better recognized as a regulatory instrument in distance with the simple game of competition.