Food for thoughts

This interview was conducted in French with Olivia Dufour, for an article published in French in the digital publication Actualité Juridique.

Its subject is  the confrontation between the current health crisis situation and the Compliance Law. 

Summary. After defining Compliance Law, distinguishing the procedural and poor definition and the substantial and rich definition, the starting point is to admit the aporia: the type of health crisis caused by Covid-19 will be renewed and it is imperative to prevent it, even to manage it, then to organize the crisis exit. Public Authorities are legitimate to do so, but because this type of crisis being global and the State being consubstantially linked to borders, States are hardly powerful. Their traditional International Law shows their  limits in this current crisis and one cannot hope that this configulration will improve radically.

In contrast, some companies and markets, notably the financial markets, are global. But the markets are not legitimate to carry out such missions and counting on the generosity of certain large companies is far too fragile in front of the "monumental goal" that is the prevention of the next health crisis, crisis which must never happen.

How to get out of this aporia?

By Compliance Law, basis of, in a literal and strong sense, the "Law of the Future". 

We need to be inspired by the Banking and Financial Compliance Law. Designed in the United States after the 1929 crisis to tend towards the "monumental goal" of the absence of a new devastating crisis in the country and the world,  this set of new legal mechanisms gave duty and power of supervision, regulation and compliance to market authorities and central bankers. These are independent of governments but in constant contact with them. Today, they claim to have as first priority the fight against climate change. Now and for the future, they must also be given the responsibility and the powers to prevent a global health disaster, similar to a global ecological disaster, similar to a global financial disaster. This does not require a modification of the texts because their mandate consists in fighting instability. Stability must become a primary legal principle, of which the fight against monetary instability was only a first example. By the new use that central banks must make of it by preventing and managing health crises, Compliance Law will ensure that the future will be not catastrophic.

This working paper is the basis for an article in the French Law Journal Le Clunet.

When we compare the terms "Compliance" and "Extraterritoriality", it is often with dissatisfaction, even anger and indignation. On the momentum, after having expressed a principle of disapproval of such a merger, attention is focused on how we can fight against it, to break the link between Compliance and Extraterritoriality. But do we have to go so fast? Is this negative initial assessment correct?

Indeed, thus gone, it is frequently explained that the binding mechanisms of Compliance are suffered, that they come from abroad!footnote-1750, that they apply with efficiency but in an illegitimate way, without agreement of the one who must submit to it, whose resistance is therefore certainly ineffective but nevertheless justified. In the same spirit, when we start to shell the cases, like so many scars, sort of rosary, even crown of thorns, BNPP case!footnote-1718, Astom case!footnote-1717, etc., the wounds not yet closed turn into reproaches made against the rules, public authorities, even reproaches made against named people.

We are leaving this kind of complaint against X, which targets what would be this appalling "Compliance", this Law which would be both hostile and mechanical which would not have been able to stay within the limits of borders, Compliance being thus placed in contrast to sovereignty and protection, which presuppose staying within its limits!footnote-1716 and being able to protect companies from abroad. More concretely, this presentation targets more directly the United States, which uses "the legal weapon", slipped under what is then designated as "the artifice of the Law" with extraterritorial scope. But this effect would in reality be the very object of the whole: their hegemonic will to better organize at least a global racket, notably through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and at best a world government through notably the embargoes.Those who believed otherwise would be naive or foolish. This silences the opponents because who likes this costume? So the world would be put in a ruled cut; what the mafia could not have done, Compliance Law would have obtained, offering the whole world to the United States thanks to the extraterritoriality of its national Law.

Compliance Law would thus become the very negation of Law, since it has the effect, even the purpose (barely concealed by strategic, powerful and shameless States), of counting borders for nothing, whereas Public International Law, in that it is built between the sovereign subjects of law that are the States presupposes the primary respect for borders to better exceed them while Private International Law takes the same postulate to better welcome foreign Law in situations presenting a foreign element!footnote-1726. Jurists believed in the force of Law; by Compliance, we would return to the sad reality that only the powerful, here the United States, dominate and - ironically - it is under the pretext of Law that they do it. It would be necessary to be well duped, or accomplice, to see there still legal where there is only the balance of powers. When one is more intelligent or skilful than that, one understands that the "small" can only be "subject" to the Compliance Law, one would have to be powerful to be the normative source and its enforcement agent. It is then towards this mis-named Department of Justice (DoJ) that the fearful, hateful and resigned glances turn. 

If you see it that way, what should you do then? The answer is obvious: react!

It is necessary to save the sovereignty, France, companies, the Law itself. If that is how the question is posed, how can we disagree? It is therefore necessary to destroy the Compliance Law and the extra-territoriality of American Law which had found this "Trojan horse", an expression so frequently used. This is the basis for the administrative reports available, for example the Berger-Lellouche!footnote-1719 parliamentary reports and the Gauvainfootnote-1720 report. Both of them broadly develop the two preceding claims, namely that the extra-priority of compliance mechanisms is illegitimate and harmful, since it is a mechanism invented by the Americans and harming the Europeans, or even invented by the Americans to harm Europeans, the description being made in much more violent terms than those used here. The description seems acquired, the reflections therefore relate to the remedies. The reaction is most often to "block" the Compliance Law in its extraterritorial effect.

But without discussing the effectiveness of the remedies proposed downstream, it is necessary to return to this description so widely shared made upstream. Because many elements on the contrary lead to affirm that ComplianceLaw first of all and by nature can only be extraterritorial and that it must be. Whether or not the State in which it was created has malicious intentions. The description which is made to us most often describes particular cases from which we draw generalities, but we cannot reduce Compliance Law to the already cooled cases, as BNPP case, or to the always hot case of the American embargo on Iran. Furthermore, one cannot take the issue of embargoes and draw conclusions, legitimate for it, but which would apply to the whole of Compliance Law. The fact that theCompliance Law is a branch of Law at the stage still of emergence can lead to this confusion which consists in taking the part for the whole, but it is very regrettable because what is justified for the embargoes does not is in no way relevant for all Compliance Law, of which precisely the Law of embargoes is only a small part, even an abusive use. This overlapping is not often perceived, because the definition of Compliance Law and its criterion are not clearly enough defined, namely the existence of a "monumental goal"!footnote-1725, which does not exist in an embargo decided unilaterally by an order decreed by the President of the United States, but which exists in all other cases and fully justifies extraterritoriality, extraterritoriality which is even consubstantial with Compliance Law (I).

Once we have distinguished the embargoes, as an atypical, sometimes even illegitimate part, of Compliance Law, we should continue this work of distinction by emphasizing that the United States has certainly invented Compliance Law!footnote-1721 but only developed a mechanical concept for the prevention and management of systemic risks. Europe has taken up this systemic conception of the protection of systems, for example financial or banking, but superimposed another conception, drawing on its deep humanist tradition!footnote-1722, whose protection of personal data is only an example and whose monumental goal is the protection of the human being. This primary concern then justifies the European use of Compliance mechanisms to interfere with global objects regardless of their location, especially the environment, and to block the entry onto the ground of objects that enter, which is contrary to Competition Law but builds a legitimate barrier under this Compliance Law, in the indifference of an extraterritorial origin (II).

Indeed, this branch of the new Law which is Compliance Law is not reducible to Competition Law!footnote-1723, any more than it is not reducible to a method. It is a substantial, extraterritorial Law because the "monumental goals" which give it substantial unity are extraterritorial. This can directly contribute to the future of a Europe which on the one hand will be able to pursue, in an extraterritorial manner, monumental humanist goals, in the field of the environment or the protection of personal information or access to the Law (in particular by the technique of compliance programs) and which, on the other hand, by the techniques of traceability of products!footnote-1724, will have the means not to bring in products manufactured in an indecent manner, except in countries which do not grant value than in Competition Law to enter the WTO.

Read the developments below.

Reference: Patrick BOLTON - Morgan DESPRES - Luiz Awazu PEREIRA DA SILVA - Frédéric SAMAMA - Romain SVARTZMAN, The green swan: central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change, Banque des Règlements Internationaux, Janvier 2020

Accede to article

Full reference: Féral-Schuhl, C., Cyberdroit. Le Droit à l'épreuve de l'internet, Collection Praxis Dalloz, Dalloz, 8th edition, 2020, 1731p.

Read the forth of cover (in French)

Read the table of contents (in French)

Référence complète : contribution à l'organisation et à la tenue de la conférence de présentation de l'Association Henri Capitant, Faculté de Droit d'Oslo, centre de droit privé, 21 novembre 2019.

Par cette conférence de présentation et la discussion qui s'en est suivie avec les juristes réunis à l'initiative du professeur Mads Andenas, professeur de droit à la Faculté de Droit d'Oslo, les bases ont été posées de la constitution d'un Groupe norvégien de l'Association Henri Capitant.

Full reference: Information Note From the European Commission to the Permanent Representatives Committee About the Progress on Combatting Hate Speech Online Through the EU Code of Conduct, Council of the European Union, 27th of September 2019, 7p.

Read the note

Summary : In August 2019, about the fire devastating the Amazon, the French Minister of Ecology says that this fact "is not just the business of a state" (n'est pas que l'affaire d'un Etat). This assertion denies the postulates of Public International Iaw (I). This supposes a new system, based on the idea that the power of the State on its territory is erased when the object that is there is no longer related to this "part" but to the All that is Universe (II). Let's accept the augur. First question: if it is not only the case of a State, whose business is it? (III). Second question: to anticipate the other cases that fall under this regime, what should be the criteria in the name of which the All will have to prevail over the part and who will then take care of the case of which the "local" State is divested? (IV). Because the perspective goes beyond the environment, beyond Brazil, beyond the States. It leads to Compliance Law animated by "monumental goals" that are the concern for the Universe and humans, in a humanist spirit. Let's go.

___

On August 27, 2019, on the French radio France Inter, Elisabeth Borne, French Minister of Ecology (Transition écologique) expresses it clearly:  "Quand on est sur un enjeu tel que l'Amazonie, ça n'est pas que l'affaire d'un État", that can be translated : "When we are on a stake such as the Amazon, it is not only the business of one State ".

Starting from one case, "the Amazon", the Minister, thus taking up the position of the French President, associates a general consequence: "it is not only the affair of one State".

This is not a trivial sentence.

This affirmation denies, and why not, the entire system of Public International Law (I). By a new reasoning based on the idea that the All prevails, as by an effect of nature, on the Part (II).

Admitting this, it leads to opening two sets of questions. The first is related to the following main question: if it is not only the case of one State, of which is this the concern (III)? The second set of questions revolves around the questioning of the criteria on behalf of which other cases must be seized in the name of "All " and how to do it (IV).

A. The postulate of Public (and Private) International Law: parties (States) which, because of common interests, are in contact

The notion of State includes in its very definition the notion of territory (a territory, a population, institutions).

Thus the State governs through its institutions what is happening on its territory. For example, if there is a fire, or a risk of fire, the State makes arrangements through all legal, financial, technical and human instruments available to it. It is accountable for what it does through its political and legal responsibility.

When what is happening on its territory exceeds this one, in fact (epidemic, catastrophe with the consequences exceeding the borders, migrations, etc.) either according to its own opinion or according to that of the other States, the States, being sovereign subjects of Law in  the international system, act together on a pre-built legal basis: bilateral or/and multilateral treaties!footnote-1675, having created legal integrated zones (like the European Union or the United States) or international institutions (like the IMF).

A particular technique has been developed for several millennia - but here again the seniority is not sufficient to keep the system: diplomacy, anchored in each state in a particular ministry: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which each national government has. If one State totally excludes one phenomenon in the territory of another, the progressive procedure of ceasing diplomatic ties begins.

This can result in wars.

In the "case of the Amazon" both the President of Brazil and the President of the United States stick to the classical construction of Law.

Indeed, the former asserted that the Amazon is in the territory of Brazil, thus falls under the jurisdiction of the power of the Brazilian State and the Brazilian Law, from which it follows that another State does not have to come to interfere. However, the French President takes the floor not as this forest extends also on a French territory but as it is the business of the World. On the contrary, the President of Brazil claims the closing effect, which excludes a third State from taking over directly something - even a difficulty - that takes place in the territory of another.

The President of the US federal State has said that these are joint decisions between the President of Brazil and other heads of State, sovereign subjects of Law, who must agree to organize a solution to solve a local problem . Because in the same way that States can declare war, they can help each other!footnote-1676.

The whole Public (and Private) International Law is therefore based on this assumption: "parts" of the world, on which sovereign parties (States) have taken contact, because circumstances make something that falls within one of them or several others.

This is precisely what is called into question. The notion of the "right of interference", whose evocation we hardly hear any more, had already done so. But on another basis.

B. The "right of interference": idea that somebody can directly interfere with what happens in a country , an idea that does not question the postulate of the International Maw, an idea that rests on something else: a " right for the other "

The "right of interference" is the idea that in certain territories, things happen that are inadmissible.

In memory of the jus cogens, a kind of "Natural Law" of Public International Law, Another, that could be another state, can come to meddle with what is happening in a territory that is closed, without declaring war. to the state that keeps its borders.

It is the need of others, for example those who die in mass on this territory, or the nature that is devastated in the indifference of the State on whose soil the disaster is happening, which founds this "right" of another state to come and take charge.

The foundation of this "right" is therefore a "duty".

C. The new idea: a territory is only part of the Globe, whose fate is everyone's concern

The idea is new because it is not based on altruism. And no more about self-interest. Yet, de facto and de jure , the Amazon is not on the sole territory of Brazil.

France is particularly well placed to say something about it since part of the Amazon is on French territory.

Thus the inaction of the main concerned Brazil directly affects the interest of France, a "forest" being a block that can not be divided. If we were in Property Law, we would say that we are in indivision with Brazil and that in this respect, with the other States on whose territories this forest extends, a solution must be found.

Because of the indivisibility of this particular object which is this particular fores!footnote-1644, it is necessary that the States whose territory is concerned have a say in the matter.

But this is not the argument put forward by France, particularly by the President of the Republic.

It is said that the whole world is concerned about the fate of the Amazon. It could be said that, in this respect, when what could be described as a "global forest" is well treated, its management does indeed fall within the power of Brazil, Brazilian companies and the Brazilian State, but when it is abused to the point of seeing its future compromised, when fires may make it disappear, then this forest appears not to be localized in Brazil but being located in the World, of which Brazil is only a part!footnote-1648.

This reasoning, which then gives voice to everyone, for in the world every state is included in it, is a new reasoning.

The economic-political theory of the "commons" does not account for it because it is not a very legal theory!footnote-1656. 

II. THE NEW REASONING THAT COVERS THE CLASSIC REASONING OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

The new reasoning adopted by the Minister consists in saying that the Amazon does not concern only Brazil. This forest should therefore be directly related to the World (A). This is a welcome change in the system but based on a paradox (B).

A. When the Amazon is in danger of death, then it should no longer be attached to this part of the World that is Brazil, but directly to the World

This forest is presented as the "lung" of the planet, it is the "future" of humanity. In this, it can concern only one State, not even the one on whose territory this "Humanity good" is located!footnote-1643. 

As such, without the need to declare war to Brazil, another State may speak, for example the French State through the one that represents it in the international order, that is to say its President, to say what to do, since according to him the President of Brazil does not say or do what it is absolutely necessary to do for the whole planet and for the future of Humanity.

This induces a complete renewal of international institutions.

Indeed a direct attachment to the World and no longer to Brazil gives the forest object a special status because of a goal that exceeds Brazil: save the Amazon would impose because it would save the world. Therefore, it can no longer be the subject of Brazil, which would be like "dispossessed" by a goal that is imposed on it: to save the Amazon rainforest, even though it is mainly on its territory, while other States become legitimate to dispose of this object, even if the forest would not be in part in their territory, even if they would not be affected in their own interests.

This contradicts all Public International Law!footnote-1645; because the agreement of the political representatives of Brazil is no longer required and no one yet evokes the need to declare war to Brazil, and fortunately!

Such an upheaval justifies that such an affirmation is accepted with difficulty. One understands better than first consequence, which is not so innocuous, one of the first rules of diplomacy which is the politeness, between the heads of state, with regard to the spouses of these , have be broken!footnote-1657, that the remarks have slipped on personal questions, etc.

B. A welcome but paradoxical change in the system

Why not change the system?

This is difficult to admit, not only because it is brutal, but because it is paradoxical.

The paradox is the following. It is recognized that the theme of the disappearance of borders by "globalization"!footnote-1647 no longer reproduces the reality of facts!footnote-1646, especially not the Chinese situation, the digitalization having on the contrary allowed the construction of even stronger boundaries. What we called "globalization" now belongs to the pastWhat we called "globalization" now belongs to the past!footnote-1660. So today we should recognize on one side the reality of borders - which had not disappeared or are reborn - but only to better step over them, since - based on the concern of the world - states, yet each in their borders, would be legitimate to go directly to intervene in the business of others. 

The paradox is therefore, on the one hand, the rejection of the allegation of a de facto disappearance of borders by an economic interdependence, technology having denied "globalization" as a fact !footnote-1649 and the linked resurgence of borders allowing States to affirm more than ever that they would be "sovereign masters at home", which should logically lead to let Brazil decide for the Amazon, while yet on the other side we witness the questioning of the postulate of Public International Law as recognition of sovereignty and construction from agreements between states, requiring the agreement of the state whose territory is concerned (except war), questioning which leads to allow all to meddle with the fate of the Amazon, as if there was no border.

This paradox leads to two questions.

The first question is: if "it's not juste one State affair", who's concerned?

The second question is: after the "case of the Amazon", what are the other cases? And how are we going to provide solutions, if we no longer have the solutions of Public International Law, that is to say, the agreement of the country whose territory is concerned and which we do not want not go to war?

If we have clear ideas on the answers to be given to these two sets of questions, then because indeed when the future of all is in progress it can not be the affair of a single State, it is necessary to question Public International Law. But do we have clear ideas on these two questions? And what are the possibilities for possible solutions?

See the text following below.

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law 

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, L'apport du Droit de la Compliance dans la Gouvernance d'Internet  (The contribution of Compliance Law to the Internet Governance), Report asked by the French Government, published the 15th of July 2019, 139 p.

___

► Report Summary. Governing the Internet? Compliance Law can help.

Compliance Law is for the Policy Maker to aim for global goals that they require to be achieved by companies in a position to do so. In the digital space built on the sole principle of Liberty, the Politics must insert a second principle: the Person. The respect of this One, in balance with the Freedom, can be required by the Policy Maker via Compliance Law, which internalises this specific pretention in the digital companies. Liberalism and Humanism become the two pillars of Internet Governance.

The humanism of European Compliance Law then enriches US Compliance law. The crucial digital operators thus forced, like Facebook, YouTube, Google, etc., must then exercise powers only to better achieve these goals to protect persons (against hatred, inadequate exploitation of data, terrorism, violation of intellectual property, etc.). They must guarantee the rights of individuals, including intellectual property rights. To do this, they must be recognized as "second level regulators", supervised by Public Authorities.

This governance of the Internet by Compliance Law is ongoing. By the European Banking Union. By green finance. By the GDPR. We must force the line and give unity and simplicity that are still lacking, by infusing a political dimension to Compliance: the Person. The European Court of Justice has always done it. The European Commission through its DG Connect is ready.

► 📓 Read the reporte (in French)

📝 Read the Report Summary in 3 pages (in English)

📝 Read the Report Summary in 6 pages (in English)

____

►  Plan of the Report (4 chapters): an ascertainment of the digitization of the world (1), the challenge of civilization that this constitutes (2), the relations of Compliance mechanisms as it should be conceived between Europe and the United States, not to mention that the world is not limited to them, with the concrete solutions that result from this (3) and concrete practical solutions to better organize an effective digital governance, inspired by what is particularly in the banking sector, and continuing what has already been done in Europe in the digital field, which has already made it exemplary and what it must continue, France can be force of proposal by the example (4).

____

📝  Read the written presentation of the Report done by Minister Cédric O (in French).

🏛 Listen to the oral  presentation of the Report by Minister Cédric O durant the parliamentary discussion of the law against hate contente on the Internet (in French).

____

💬 Read the interview published the 18 July 2019 : "Gouvernance d'Internet : un enjeu de civilisation" ( "Governing Internet: an Issue of Civilization"), given in French, 

📻 Listen the Radio broadcast of July 21, 2019 during which its consequences are applied to the cryptocurrency "Libra" (given in French)

🏛 Presentation of the Report to the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel- CSA (French Council of Audiovisual) on Septembre 5, by a discussion with its members presentation (in French)

💬 Read the  Interview published the 20 December 2019 : "Le droit de la compliance pour réguler l'Internet" ("Compliance Law for regulate Internet"), given in French

____

read below the 54 propositions of the Report ⤵️

Full reference: Bounie, D. and Maxwell, W., L'explicabilité des algorithmes est-elle un droit fondamental?, Column in Le Monde, 1st of September 2019 

Read the column (in French)

Full reference: Fabre-Magnan, M., La responsabilité du fait du cocontractant. Une figure juridique pour la RSE, in Liber amicorum en hommage à Pierre Rodière. Droit social international et européen en mouvement, Coll. Mélanges, LGDJ-Lextenso, 2019, pp. 79-90

Sciences Po's students can read the article via Sciences Po's Drive in the folder MAFR - Régulation & Compliance

Référence complète : Thierache, C., RGPD vs Cloud Act : le nouveau cadre légal américain est-il anti-RGPD ?, in La Revue juridique Dalloz IP/IT,  n°6, 2019, p.367

Les étudiants de Sciences po peuvent lire l'article via le Drive dans le dossier "MAFR - Régulation & Compliance"

♾️ follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn

♾️ subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

____

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Pour une Europe de la Compliance (For the Europe of the Compliance), series "Régulations & Compliance", Dalloz, 2019, 124 p. 

____

This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in this collection.

📚Read the other books' presentations of the collection about Compliance:

🕴️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

🕴️N. Borga, 🕴️J.-Cl. Marin &🕴️J.-Ch. Roda (ed.), 📕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

📚Read the presentations of the other titles of the collection.

____

► General presentation of the book: This book is written in French. The topic is : "For the Europe of the Compliance".

See below its general presentation in English. 

The political dimension is intrinsic to the Compliance Law. Indeed, compliance mechanisms consist of internalizing in certains companies the obligation to implement goals of general interest set by Public Authorities. These public bodies control the Ex Ante reorganization that implies for these companies and punish Ex Post the possible structural inadequacy of these compagnies, becoming transparent for this purpose. 

This new mode of governance establishes a continuum between Regulation, Supervision, Compliance (book published in 2017) and renew the links between Companies, Regulators and Judges!footnote-1600. 

This political dimension must be increased: the Compliance Law of Compliance must today be used to build Europe.

One can observe not only the construction of the  European Compliance Law, object-by-object, sector-by-sector, purpose-by-purpose, but also the construction of the European Compliance Law that transcends and unifies them. Becoming independent of American Law and ceasing to be in reaction, even on the defensive, the Compliance Law contributes to the European project, offering it a higher ambition, that Europe can carry and, by this way, can carry the Europe itself, not only to preserve the European economy from corruption or money laundering, but by claiming the protection of nature and human beings.

This is why the book describes the "reasons and objectives" of the Europe of the Compliance, which makes it possible to describe, detect and even predict the ways and means.

____

► Understand the book through the Table of Contents and the summaries of each article: 

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Avant propos 

🕴️K. Lenaerts, 📝Le juge de l'Union européenne dans une Europe de la compliance

🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📝Un droit substantiel de la compliance, appuyé sur la tradition européenne humaniste

I. LES RAISONS ET LES OBJECTIFS D'UNE EUROPE DE LA COMPLIANCE (THE REASONS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EUROPE OF THE COMPLIANCE) 

🕴️X. Musca, 📝Construire une Europe de la compliance en donnant une meilleure place aux entreprises

🕴️P. Vimont, 📝La place de la diplomatie dans l'avancée d'une Europe de la compliance

🕴️P. Sellal, 📝Les vertus de la compliance : une réponse possible aux faiblesses de l'Union européenne ?

🕴️J.-J. Daigre, 📝Compliance, entreprise et Europe

II. LES VOIES ET MOYENS D'UNE EUROPE DE LA COMPLIANCE  (THE WAYS AND MEANS OF THE EUROPE OF THE COMPLIANCE)

🕴️J.-Cl. Marin, 📝Quels outils pour la construction du droit de la compliance en Europe ?

🕴️M. Canto-Sperber, 📝La compliance et les définitions traditionnelles de la vertu

🕴️T. Bonneau, 📝Compliance et secteur bancaire et financier en Europe

🕴️C. Duchaine, 📝L'Agence française anticorruption, à l'appui de l'Europe de la compliance

🕴️D. Martin, 📝Les contraintes et les vertus de la compliance

🕴️A. de La Cotardière, 📝Construire une Europe de la compliance lisible pour les entreprises

________

Cette participation à la table-ronde présidée par Andrea Enria, chairman du Supervisory Board du Single Supervisory Mecanism de la Banque Centrale Européenne qui a pour thème Competition and Regulation in the financial sector. 

Elle-même fait partie d'une journée ayant pour thème Competition in a globalised world: the role of public policies, organisée dans le cadre du G7 France 2019 par la Banque de France et le Ministère de l'économie et des finances.

La conférence et les supports sont en anglais.

Dans la table-ronde, il m'est plus particulièrement demandé d'abord la question de la méthodologie à adopte dans le secteur financier, en raison des nouveaux acteurs digitaux, et des principes à adopter à propos des datas.

Lire le programme générale de la journée.

Lire les slides servant de base à l'intervention.

Full reference: Finantsinspektsioon, 19th of February 2019, Danske Bank 

Read the Finantsinspektsioon's press release

In this decision, the Estonian financial monitoring authority forces Danske Bank to stop its activities in Estonia because of breaches to its obligations concerning fight against money laundering. 

Référence générale : Patrick Wajsman (dir.), Politique internationale, dossier spécial, Investissement responsable : l'essor, n°162, hiver 2018-2019, 119 p.

Consulter le sommaire de la Revue.

Consulter la présentation des entretiens suivants :

Boujnah, S., Places boursières : promouvoir un modèle européen.

Jensen, S., Norvège : exemple d'un fonds souverain éthique.

Ribera, T., Faciliter la transition écologique : ce que peut l'État.

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Creating "Regulation Law" at Dauphine, in Huault, I. and Bouchard, B. (ed.), 50 years of Research in Dauphine. 1968-2019, 2019, pp. 110-114

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's article (in French)

Read also: 

The foreword of the book written by Bruno Bouchard (in French)

The preface of the book written by Ivar Ekeland (in French)

The table of contents of the book (in French)

Le Droit n'est fait que de mots. L'essentiel est donc de les ranger (exercice de qualification) pour que se déclenche à propos d'eux un régime juridique, par exemple la liberté, l'autorisation ou l'interdiction.

Prenons un exemple américain, un exemple chéri par cette culture-là : le port d'arme.

Un juge fédéral de New-York a rendu une Ordonnance le 14 décembre 2018 à propos de la qualification juridique d'un nunchaku!footnote-1399  posant que sa détention par une personne à son domicile ne peut être prohibée par un Etat car l'individu exerce en cela son droit constitutionnel du port d'arme, tel que défini par la Cour suprême. En cela, il donne raison au demandeur qui contestait une disposition législative interdisant la détention par un individu de ce type d'arme.

En effet en 1974 l'Etat de New-York a interdit leur fabrication, leur transport, leur stockage, leur possession. 35 ans après, un juge estime que ce texte, tel qu'il est rédigé, est contraire au droit constitutionnel de porter une arme, ce qui anéantit la prohibition.

Pourquoi ?

En effet, la distinction expressément soutenue par le demandeur entre la possession à domicile d'une arme inusuelle pour inventer un nouvel art martial n'a pas été retenue en tant que telle, mais bien plutôt une démonstration probatoire qui oblige l'Etat qui prohibe un port d'arme à supporter (puisqu'il porte atteinte à une liberté constitutionnelle)  la charge de prouver que le port de cette arme n'est pas une façon pour un individu ordinaire d'être en mesure de l'utiliser conformément à la loi, par exemple pour se défendre (I). On aurait pourtant pu concevoir une définition plus stricte de ce qu'est une "arme", au moment même où la distinction entre les armes de défense et les armes d'assaults justifie des interdictions nouvelles et que ce dernier type d'argument a convaincu des juges fédéraux (II). Mais n'est-ce pas plutôt parce qu'aujourd'hui on oublie Bruce Lee et que cet américain moyen, qui a la mémoire courte - auquel se réfère le juge - n'est pas Tarantino, qui a la mémoire longue, comme tout cinéphile  ? (III).

Full reference : Laget-Annamayer, A. (ed.), L'ordre public économique ("Economic Public Order"), coll. "Droit et Économie", LGDJ - Lextenso éditions, 2018, 397p.

This collective book is published in French. 

This is the 32nd volume published in this collection.

Often launched as an all-encompassing expression, both by the doctrine and by the judge, public economic order remains a mysterious concept whose substance and contours are difficult to know, simply because it is liable to fluctuate according to its apprehension and depending on the economic and social context.

Yet the expression has become widely used, almost incantatory, like a label, and there is therefore undoubtedly a gap between its invocation and its meaning in Law. It is to this discrepancy, and in an attempt to reduce the mystery, that this work is devoted. Not stopping at the only vision of public economic order in internal Public Law, he tries to seek the meanings of it in Comparative Law, in European and International Law, without omitting the historical, privatist or economic vision. It is therefore to this rich overview treated by specialists from different legal fields and beyond that this book invites. It does not aim to put an end to the debate, but on the contrary to arouse it in the context of reflections on the relationship between Law and Economics of which everyone knows the importance.

Authors are :

• Olivier Baillet,
• Jacques Caillosse,
• Aurélien Camus,
• Jacques Chevallier,
• Dominique Custos,
• Pierre Delvolvé,
• Samuel Ferey,
• Sébastien Hourson,
• Pascale Idoux,
• Jean-Philippe Kovar,
• Aurore Laget-Annamayer,
• Jérémy Martinez,
• Francesco Martucci,
• Jeanne Mesmin d’Estienne,
• Claire Mongouachon,
• Eric Naim-Gesbert,
• Guillaume Richard,
• Jean-Marc Sorel,
• Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières.

Read the forth of cover.

Read the Table of Contents.

See the whole collection in which this book is published

Discours d'Emmanuel Macron, président de la République, au Forum "Gouvernance Internet", Unesco, 13 novembre 2018. 

Lire le Discours. Compl

►Référence complète : M.-A. Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Le système juridique français constitue-t-il un atout ou un handicap pour nos entreprises et nos territoires ?" in M. Pébereau, M. (dir.), Réformes et transformations, PUF, 2018.

____

Résumé de l'article : La formulation de la question posée est comme une fermeture de tout débat, posant implicitement que le Droit devrait servir l'Économie et le servir "bien" (atout) plutôt que "mal" (handicap), alors qu'il faudrait s'accorder sur une méthode consistant pour chaque discipline à l'œuvre à ne prendre l'ascendant sur l'autre (I). Ce jugement doit être global, porter sur le droit en tant qu'il est un système. Quand on lit les différents travaux, ils ne portent que sur tel ou tel mécanisme, au mieux sur tel ou tel branche du Droit, ce qui méconnaît le fait que le Droit français est un système (II). C'est pourtant bien qu'en tant qu'il est un système que le Droit français doit être saisi, l’appréhender non seulement par ses signaux forts, mais aussi par ses signaux faibles Ceux-ci peuvent constituer les atouts les plus précieux (III).  Plus encore, il est fructueux de donner plein effet à ce terme si particulier et peu souvent valorisé qu’est le terme de « territoire », placé dans la question, terme si ancien et aujourd'hui si intriguant puisque de "nouveaux territoires" s'offrent à nous : le digital, l’Europe. Et là, le système juridique français, que peut-il apporter, portant alors ce que l’on pourrait appeler la gloire française, car le Droit est comme le Politique une discipline qui porte des « prétentions », par exemple celle de construire l’Europe, par exemple l’Europe digitale (IV).

____

📝Lire l'article.

____

🚧Lire le document de travail ayant servi de base à l'article. 

________

This working paper has served  as a basis for an article written in French in the book Compliance : Entreprise, Régulateur, Juge ("Compliance: Enterprise, Regulator, Judge"), published in May 2018 in the Regulations Series of Dalloz editions (Paris).

See the other books published in this collection (presentation in French), directed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche (presentation in English).


ABSTRACT: The Company, the Regulator and the Judge are three key figures for the construction of an emerging Compliance Law. An important risk lies in a confusion of their respective roles, the company becoming a regulator, the regulator becoming a board of a place that goes to the conquest of others, the judge standing back. It is appropriate that each plays his role and that their respective function is not distorted. If this confusion is avoided, then the points of contact can multiply and one observes it. But as soon as everyone remains in its place, we can go further than these points of contact and if they agreed, the three characters can reach common goals. This is all the more legitimate since Compliance Law, as Regulation Law, is teleological in nature, which makes these branches of law profoundly political. These common goals are technical, such as risk prevention. They can be more political and higher, if there is a shared will, without ever one of the characters being captured by another: it is then to concern by the human being. The designation of this common goal to the Company, the Regulator and the Judge can be expressed in one word: Europe.

Full reference: Musso, P. and Supiot, A. (ed.), Qu'est-ce qu'un régime de travail réellement humain?, collection Société et pensées, Hermann, 2018, 524 p.

This book comes from an intervention given on 25th of September 2014 at Paris-Dauphine University.